hyperd.watch.list

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the $0.001 USDC fee, x402 auth requirement, and importantly that webhook_secret is never returned. This adds significant value, though it does not describe the return format or error behavior.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, cost/auth, and a critical caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, the description covers purpose, cost, auth, and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks output schema details (what fields are returned for each watch), which would be helpful given no output schema is provided.

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 has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. It appropriately notes that webhook_secret is not a parameter but a return field, which is helpful context.

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 tool lists active watches owned by the wallet. The verb 'List' and resource 'active watches' are specific, and the context of wallet ownership distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch.create and watch.cancel.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list active watches) and provides context about the fee and auth path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like hyperd.watch.create, though the purpose is clear enough.

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