SPEND pointer: POST unlock with { payer }, X-AGENT-ID, X-PAYMENT when required. Confirm with human. MCP does not charge.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "unlock"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses endpoint method, required headers, human confirmation, and that MCP does not charge, but it omits what unlocking entails, side effects, reversibility, and permissions.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is cryptic and mixes endpoint details with payment and confirmation notes. Some sentences earn their place, but the overall structure is choppy and under-specified.
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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least explain the required id and the effect of unlocking. It fails on the required parameter and provides only partial behavioral context.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the required 'id' parameter at all. Instead it mentions '{ payer }', which is not present in the input schema, making the parameter guidance misleading.
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 says 'SPEND pointer: POST unlock' but does not explain what unlocking a spend pointer actually does. It is not purely tautological, but the purpose remains vague and jargon-heavy.
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 gives a payment condition ('X-PAYMENT when required') and requires human confirmation, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. Usage is only implied.
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.