Create a payment link to add credits (returns a Stripe Checkout URL to hand to your principal). In sandbox mode this explains the sandbox instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Legwork API key (lw_live_…). Optional if the MCP connection sends an Authorization: Bearer header. Get one with legwork_register. | |
| amount_usd | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it creates a payment link and returns a URL, and mentions sandbox behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether this operation has side effects (e.g., if credits are actually added immediately), if it requires special permissions beyond the API key, or if it's reversible. The mention of sandbox adds some transparency.
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 concise sentences that clearly state the purpose and output. No fluff or redundant details.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the primary output (Stripe Checkout URL), and sandbox behavior. However, it doesn't mention details like whether the URL expires, rate limits, or prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic selection.
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 50% (only api_key has a description). The description does not explain the semantics of 'amount_usd' (e.g., format, range, required) beyond implying it's the amount to top up. It also doesn't clarify that api_key is optional in some contexts. Given the low coverage hug, the description fails to compensate.
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 tool creates a payment link for adding credits, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('payment link'). It also mentions the output (Stripe Checkout URL) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by being the only one about payments.
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 should be used when the user wants to add credits and provides a clear context: it returns a Stripe Checkout URL to hand to the principal. It also mentions sandbox behavior, giving conditional guidance reti, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools.
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 distinct purpose: task actions (approve, cancel, post), retrieval (get_task, my_tasks, marketplace), account (register, wallet, topup), messaging (send_message), and intents. No overlapping functionalities.
Mostly verb_noun pattern (cancel_task, get_task, post_task, request_changes, send_message) with some single verbs (approve, register, topup) and nouns (marketplace, wallet) causing slight inconsistency, but all are clear.
12 tools appropriately cover the core operations of a task marketplace without being overwhelming or sparse.
Comprehensive coverage: task lifecycle (create, read, list, update via request_changes, delete via cancel), user management, payments, intents, and marketplace browsing. No major gaps.
