Verify an access key and report what it unlocks. Returns valid:true/false; when valid, the tier, when it was created, the premium slugs it unlocks, and that it grants the gated /api/corpus.full.jsonl + get_full_corpus deliverable. Never returns the key, email, or Stripe session. Use this to confirm a freshly-purchased key works before relying on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Access key to verify (cg_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (valid:true/false and details when valid) and explicitly states what it never returns (key, email, Stripe session), providing good behavioral context beyond the basic function.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide necessary details in a structured manner with no wasted 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains return values, what is included when valid, and explicitly states omissions. No additional context is needed.
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 already describes the single parameter (api_key) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics but mentions output constraints ('Never returns the key'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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's action ('Verify an access key') and its result ('report what it unlocks'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_access_info which might serve a different purpose.
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 says when to use the tool: 'Use this to confirm a freshly-purchased key works before relying on it.' It provides a clear use case but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking access, fetching corpus (free vs full), pricing, payment, listing, searching, stats, and single resource retrieval. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_access, get_corpus, list_resources). Verbs are uniform and descriptive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a resource access and management API. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive number.
The toolset covers core operations: access verification, corpus retrieval (free and premium), pricing, payment info, resource listing, search, and stats. Missing write operations (e.g., purchase), but acceptable for a read-focused server.