Get alerted when a program, contract or lockfile changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent); the description adds substantial detail beyond them: 30-day duration, hourly polling cadence, POST delivery to an https webhook, the x-watchdog-signature HMAC scheme, the $0.90 USDC cost with per-chain payment, and the once-only exposure of watchId/secret/accessToken.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence plus a short tail sentence; the value proposition and duration lead, and detail follows. The heavy parenthetical lists are information-packed rather than redundant, though the sentence is long enough to be slightly harder to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned credentials and stressing they are shown once. Cost, payment chain, cadence and delivery contract are covered; lifecycle questions (renewal after 30 days, how to inspect an existing watch via watch_status) are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (just webhook), so the description carries the load and does so well: it maps programId to authority/multisig/upgrade concerns, address+chain to implementation/owner changes, and lockfile_path to advisories. The chain enum value 'robinhood' is never addressed, which is a small gap given the enum exists in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: subscribe to change alerts for three concrete target types (Solana program, EVM contract, lockfile), each identified by its parameter. The scope (30 days, hourly checks) and target taxonomy make it immediately distinguishable from sibling scanners like scan_repo or dependency_advisories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('something you rely on changes') and maps each parameter combination to a distinct monitoring scenario. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusions, so the agent isn't told when a one-shot scan tool is preferable to a persistent watch.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.