Get the checkout link to upgrade this account to a paid plan (Indie €29/mo: 10 competitors + weekly auto-reports; Pro €79/mo: 25 competitors, new channels first, full API). Payment happens in the browser. Hand the link to the human.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but description adds that payment happens in the browser, clarifying the tool's non-destructive nature. No contradictions.
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 serving a purpose: action, payment context, agent instruction. No fluff, front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description specifies the outcome (checkout link) but lacks detail on link format or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple tool, but could mention account requirement.
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 single parameter 'plan' has an enum but no schema description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by listing each plan's features and pricing, adding meaning beyond enum values.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'checkout link to upgrade this account', with plan details. Distinguishes from sibling tools by its specific 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?
Explicitly instructs to hand the link to the human, implying the agent should not follow it. Provides context on when to use (upgrading account) but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
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 clear, distinct purpose. The status checkers (assemble_status, clips_status) are differentiated by the job type they monitor. Memory tools (index, note, recall) are distinct operations. Competitor ad tools (search, get ads, get details) and video generation pipeline (avatar, clips, assembly) are well-separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., assemble_video, get_competitor_ads, memory_index). No mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to understand.
With 17 tools, the server covers account management, memory, competitor research, and video generation without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for its functionality, neither too sparse nor too heavy.
The toolset covers the core workflows: account setup (sign_up, upgrade, whoami), memory (CRUD), competitor analysis (search, get ads, details), and video ad creation (avatar, clips, assembly). Minor gaps like lacking a delete memory tool are acceptable given the domain focus.
