list_watchesRetrieve all configured watches for your bank accounts, including their rules, current status, and last triggered time. Use this to monitor account activity and verify alert conditions.
All watches with their rule, status and when they last fired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or whether any prior state (e.g., consent) is required. Only the returned fields are mentioned.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource and its contents. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.
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 no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description adequately states the return values (rule, status, last fired). It is slightly under-specified regarding the exact scope of 'all' and the distinction from check_watches, but remains largely complete for its simplicity.
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 is empty with zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description has no need to add parameter details since there are none.
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 identifies the resource (watches) and the exact fields returned (rule, status, last fired), making it clear this is a list/read operation. It differentiates from create_watch and delete_watch via the listing nature, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from check_watches, a sibling of unknown behavior.
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 guidance is given on when to use list_watches versus check_watches, create_watch, or delete_watch. The description only states what the tool returns and does not include any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.