Uptime Canary Probe

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

Annotations already disclose openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant information — that the call settles 0.25 USD via x402 on eip155:8453, meaning it is a paid external request — but says nothing about what is probed, failure semantics, or latency/cost trade-offs.

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?

It is short and the paid-route fact is placed early, but the first line is pure title repetition and the total content is undersized for a 3-parameter paid tool — brevity here comes at the cost of specification rather than from tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a paid, non-idempotent, open-world probe with three undocumented parameters the description leaves the agent without the essentials: what a check is, what the endpoint does, and when to call it.

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 0% across three parameters (checks, service_url, last_confirmed_settlement_tx), and the description explains none of them. In particular the meaning of the checks array and the role of last_confirmed_settlement_tx (idempotency/replay guard?) are completely undocumented anywhere.

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 restates the title verbatim ("Uptime Canary Probe") and adds only a transport route and price. It never states what the probe actually does — check a service_url's availability? measure latency? — nor distinguishes it from siblings like v1_uptime_attest, v1_readiness_attest, or v1_latency_benchmark.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all. With ~120 sibling tools including several uptime/attestation variants, an agent has no basis to choose this one over v1_uptime_attest or v1_readiness_attest.

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