register_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: registration action, plan requirement, and the types of contract changes triggering alerts. However, it omits operational details like idempotency, response format, webhook lifecycle, or duplicate handling, which limits transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and prerequisite for a registration tool. The schema enriches parameter understanding. It could mention the response or webhook lifecycle, but the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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?

The input schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, meeting the high-coverage baseline of 3. The description adds context tying events to contract changes and the plan requirement to api_key, but it does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Register' with the resource 'webhook' and specifies the exact purpose: receiving alerts for contract ownership, proxy, or risk changes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like monitor_wallet or scan_contract by focusing on webhook-based notifications.

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?

The description implies a use case (setting up proactive contract change alerts) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_alerts or monitor_wallet. The plan requirement (Pro/Builder) is mentioned as a prerequisite, but there is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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