Signed uptime of a third-party API, measured by us (PAID $0.10)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent remote call. The description adds real value by disclosing the paid x402 USDC payment rail and exact amount, but it never explains what 'signed' means (who signs, what proof is returned) or that repeated calls each incur a charge.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and the cost, with the endpoint and payment rail condensed into one parenthetical. It is slightly redundant since the first line repeats the title verbatim.

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, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is any explanation of the measurement window parameter and any guidance on when this paid call beats the free-looking sibling attestation tools.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for `url` and `window_hours`, and it carries none. `window_hours` in particular (default 24) is unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it scopes the measurement period or something else.

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?

Names a concrete resource and action: a signed/attested uptime measurement of a third-party API, produced by the operator. It is distinguishable from attestation siblings like v1_readiness_attest or v1_latency_benchmark, though it never explicitly says how it differs from v1_mcp_verify_uptime, which sounds like the natural alternative.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the many other attestation/verification tools in the sibling list. The only usage-relevant signal is the $0.10 price tag, which tells the agent it costs money but not when that spend is warranted.

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