create_trial_keyCreate a BuyerAware API key so this user can run verdicts (3 free). Call this once when no key is configured, then show the user the key and tell them to save it. Do not call it again for someone who already has a key — one trial per email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | optional display name for the key record | |
| Yes | the user's email address; the key is issued against it, one trial key per address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals that this operation issues a key, provides 3 free verdicts, and enforces a one-trial-per-email policy, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.
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 three sentences with no filler. It fronts the core purpose, then gives actionable next steps, and ends with the key exclusion rule. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to do with the result ('show the user the key and tell them to save it'). It also covers the prerequisite, the quota, and the uniqueness constraint, so nothing essential is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meanings. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('BuyerAware API key'), and the purpose ('so this user can run verdicts'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools, which are about analysis and lookup rather than key creation.
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 explicit instructions on when to call ('once when no key is configured') and when not to call ('Do not call it again for someone who already has a key'). It also explains the one-trial-per-email constraint, leaving no ambiguity.
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 targets a distinct step: starting a paid async analysis, polling for its result, creating the API key, and two different free lookups (recommendations vs. single-platform lookup). The descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use each, leaving little room for misselection.
The three action tools (analyze_listing, create_trial_key, get_verdict) follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but tank_alternatives and tank_lookup break it by leading with the noun 'tank'. The tank_ prefix is recognizable, but the set mixes verb-first and noun-first naming.
Five tools is a tight, appropriate scope for a pre-purchase vehicle-verdict service: one paid analysis, one polling endpoint, one API-key setup, and two free instant database queries. Each tool earns its place and none feels redundant.
The core lifecycle is covered: create_trial_key enables access, analyze_listing starts a job, get_verdict retrieves its outcome, and tank_alternatives/tank_lookup cover adjacent free research workflows. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.