Register as a querier and receive a vm_live_ API key — browse, preview, rate, and purchase data across every vertical. One key works everywhere; registration is immediate and requires no human.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that registration is immediate, requires no human, and the key is universal across verticals. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. The second sentence adds valuable details (universal key, immediate registration) without padding.
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 simple registration tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key outcome (API key) and usage scope. It lacks details about parameter purposes, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. It does not mention 'name' or 'email' or their roles. The overall purpose is stated, but the individual parameter semantics are left to the 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 clearly states the action ('Register as a querier') and the outcome ('receive a vm_live_ API key'), and it explains the key's utility for browsing, previewing, rating, and purchasing data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like become_seller or buy_data by focusing on the querier role.
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 implies the tool is for anyone wanting to become a querier, with notes that one key works everywhere and registration is immediate with no human involvement. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the 'querier' framing contrasts with seller-oriented 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_platform_stats and marketplace_stats overlap in the stats domain and could be confused. The rest are well-separated by buyer/seller/wallet roles.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (buy_data, get_wallet_balance) with noun-first patterns (marketplace_stats, seller_dashboard, listing_history). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable.
27 tools is above the heavy threshold and there are multiple near-duplicate stats tools and several informational/contact tools that could be consolidated. The scope is broad but the count feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full seller lifecycle (list, update, delist, dashboard), buyer lifecycle (browse, preview, buy, get receipt, rate), wallet management, and health-data-specific flows. Missing refund/dispute tools are a minor gap.
