SLA Watchtower Report (paid, credits or x402)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: reports are aggregated over 24h, probes run every 30 minutes, reports are pre-computed (~1s latency), EIP-191 signed, and there is a cost of $0.05 USDC with 3 free reports. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-organized with clear labels (WHAT, WHEN, WHEN NOT, COST, LATENCY, OUTPUT) and every sentence provides distinct, useful information. It is concise for the amount of context it delivers, with no 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?

The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, cost, latency, output shape, and limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description goes beyond what is required, making it fully complete for a 1-parameter tool.

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% for the single parameter 'service', and the schema already provides its description ('Host or URL substring of the watched service'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'WHAT: returns the latest signed SLA report for a watched x402 service' and enumerates the exact output fields (uptime_pct, price_match_pct, current_verdict). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming oracle_verify_work as the tool for work products, and clarifies the report is for SLA health, not real-time status.

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 explicitly provides WHEN ('before routing paid traffic to an x402 service you do not control, or when checking whether a service still charges its advertised price'), WHEN NOT ('for real-time health', 'for services not yet watched', 'for verifying work products'), and names an alternative tool (oracle_verify_work). This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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