iota_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: cursor-based incremental returns, response fields (direction, amount, status, time, explorer link, balance), cost ($0.002 USDC per call) and p99 latency (2000ms). It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit or error behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope before the pagination mechanics, then cost/latency. Dense but every clause carries useful information; the only slight excess is the stacked return-field list, which could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return fields and the balance, and it covers the stateful cursor workflow plus cost/latency. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though auth and failure modes are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining cursor semantics beyond the schema's terse "Cursor from the previous call" — clarifying the first call returns a cursor and that only new transactions arrive on subsequent calls. The limit param is left to 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Watch an IOTA mainnet address or IOTA name") with the polling semantics stated. It clearly distinguishes a continuous watcher from one-shot siblings like iota_tx or iota_address, and enumerates the exact return payload. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

States intended use cases explicitly ("For deposit detection, treasury and whale watching") and explains the incremental-call workflow (first call returns recent tx + cursor, pass cursor back). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. one-off lookups should use iota_tx) or an explicit alternative, so it isn't a full 5.

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