solv_alerts_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: HMAC-SHA256 signing with an X-SolvScore-Signature header, a 6-hour re-scoring cadence, a top-48 roster scope, and that subscribe returns a subscription_id plus secret. However, it never clarifies whether calling this tool itself creates a subscription (it cannot, given zero parameters) and the text is truncated mid-URL ('?subsc'), leaving the status flow incomplete.

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?

It is front-loaded with the value proposition and cadence, which is good, but then embeds full endpoint URLs and JSON bodies verbatim, inflating length for an info tool. The final sentence is cut off mid-word, which is an outright structural defect.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is the entire payload, and it covers the subscribe payload, return values, and signature verification. But the truncated status endpoint and the ambiguity about what calling this tool actually returns leave an agent without a complete picture of the tool's own behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; baseline is 4. The description's field names (agent, webhook_url, subscription_id, secret) describe a separate HTTP API, not this tool's inputs, which risks mild confusion but does not misdocument the empty 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?

The description names a specific resource (SolvScore webhook alerts on trust score, badges, credit limit, APR, bond status) and distinguishes itself from score-reader siblings by covering change notifications rather than snapshot reads. It stops short of stating plainly that invoking this zero-parameter tool returns documentation rather than performing the subscription.

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?

Usage is implied through the subscribe/unsubscribe/status flows, so an agent can infer the tool is for setting up or inspecting alert subscriptions. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. needing an AgentWorld agent id), and no routing to alternative score-monitoring tools like solvscore_vjps_top.

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