Check the status of a pending API key request.
Use the exact same email the user provided to request_api_key.
Poll this every 10 seconds. Once the user clicks the verification
link in their inbox, status changes from 'pending' to 'ready'
and the response includes the API key. Store it immediately —
returned once only. Expires after 15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given, so the description must be self-sufficient. It discloses that the key is returned only once, expires after 15 minutes, and how the status changes from pending to ready. This is highly transparent.
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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the email reference is irrelevant to the request_id parameter and adds confusion, detracting slightly from the overall clarity and conciseness.
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 polling workflow, state transitions, and expiry are well covered. But the critical gap of not explaining the required request_id parameter leaves the description incomplete for successful tool invocation.
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 schema has a single required parameter request_id with no description. The description confusingly references using the user's email instead of explaining request_id, providing misleading guidance and failing to clarify what value should be passed.
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?
Clearly states it checks the status of a pending API key request. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling request_api_key.
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?
Provides explicit instructions: use the same email as request_api_key, poll every 10 seconds, and store the key immediately when status changes to ready. It also describes the transition condition, offering strong usage 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: API key request/status, data ingestion, current state retrieval, session history, and trigger memory. No two tools overlap in functionality or could be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., request_api_key, get_human_state, get_session_history). This creates a predictable and intuitive naming convention across the entire set.
Six tools is well-scoped for a real-time human state awareness API, covering the essential lifecycle (key management, data intake, state access, history, and psychological insights) without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain: authentication (request and check key), data ingestion, current state, historical trends, and cross-session trigger profiles. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.