radiant_watch_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the current status hash, subscribes to future changes, and delivers notifications as ElectrumX push events. It could add subscription lifetime/cancellation details, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the polling alternative is included at the end—every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter subscription tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how notifications arrive. It is slightly incomplete around exact response shape and subscription lifecycle, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as a 'Radiant address to watch.' The description reinforces that it is a Radiant address but adds no new format or validation details beyond 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 verb and resource: 'Subscribe to real-time payment notifications for a Radiant address via ElectrumX scripthash subscription.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling read tools by focusing on live watching/subscription rather than one-time queries.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of polling for payment detection,' which gives a clear use case and an implicit when-not. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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