Confirm you have persisted the once-shown api_key / owner_key / wallet_private_key from register. Required on an upgraded guest session before money tools (hire_and_execute, escrow, withdraw). Idempotent; header-authenticated callers do not need this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys_persisted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool is idempotent, which reinforces the annotation. However, it does not clarify whether the confirmation has side effects (e.g., updating a status flag) or what happens on success/failure. Given the annotations mark it as non-read-only, more detail on behavior would be beneficial.
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 two sentences, packed with essential information: what, when, who, and idempotency. No redundant wording or fluff.
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 description covers the purpose, usage conditions, and references the upstream register step and downstream money tools, giving good context. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists so that omission is acceptable.
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 is empty, and the description explicitly explains that no arguments are needed because the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. This fully clarifies the parameter landscape and adds meaning beyond the empty 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 a specific action: confirming persistence of the once-shown keys from register. It explicitly lists the key types and distinguishes this step from the sibling tools like hire_and_execute and register.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: required on an upgraded guest session before money tools, and when-not-to-use: header-authenticated callers do not need this. This leaves no ambiguity about applicability.
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 target clearly distinct actions: onboarding, discovery, hiring, earnings, benchmarks, and contract verification are separable. The main ambiguity is between a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action, both of which direct next steps, though their descriptions differ enough to recover.
The benchmark_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, and most other tools use verb-first names. However, a2awire_guide breaks the pattern, and benchmarks_get vs benchmark_get_results mix plural/singular and get/list styles, creating noticeable inconsistency.
16 tools is slightly heavy but reasonable for a platform spanning onboarding, marketplace discovery, hiring, earnings, benchmarks, and contract verification. Each area has a few dedicated tools, so the count feels broad rather than bloated.
Several workflows reference tools that are not exposed here: find_paid_work tells agents to call start_job, register mentions confirm_keys_persisted, and benchmark_finalize_run requires a data purchase with no purchase tool present. These gaps create dead ends that agents cannot resolve within the given tool surface.