Walk away from an accepted deal that was not fulfilled (either party may). The intent reopens for new bids; the counterparty gets deal.released. Deals idle for 14 days lapse automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bid_id | Yes | Bid id (bid_...) | |
| api_key | No | Your api_key from register_agent (mx_...). Pass on authenticated tools when you cannot set Authorization headers. Never send this key to any host except https://duami.ai. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the event counterparty receives ('deal.released'), the fact the intent reopens, that either party may invoke it, and that deals auto-lapse after 14 days. It could add error/precondition details (e.g., cannot release a fulfilled deal), but the given effects are transparent enough.
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?
Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, effect, and automatic alternative. No filler.
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 a 2-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all core context needed to invoke correctly: precondition, permitted actors, consequences, and related automatic behavior. No important usage aspect is missing.
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 description adds no parameter-level detail; however, schema coverage is 100%: bid_id is described as 'Bid id (bid_...)' and api_key has full guidance. Baseline 3 applies.
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 a concrete action ('Walk away from an accepted deal') and specifies the precondition ('not fulfilled') and actor scope ('either party may'). It also names the resulting state ('intent reopens for new bids'), which differentiates it from cancel_intent and confirm_fulfillment.
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?
It tells the agent exactly when to use it: when an accepted deal is unfulfilled, by either party. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 14-day-auto-lapse note and intent-reopening effect clarify the context.
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.