create_onboarded_businessCreate a generated Nas.com onboarding session and branding from a host-derived description, optionally using an uploaded onboarding image. Authenticated callers also receive a draft community; anonymous callers carry the onboardingSessionObjectId into checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageUrl | No | ||
| deviceCountry | No | ||
| deviceTimezone | No | ||
| businessDescription | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: authenticated callers get a draft community, anonymous get an ID for checkout. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no fluff. Efficient but could be slightly more structured for the conditional behavior.
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?
Adequate for a creation tool with no output schema, but missing details on return values, prerequisites for authentication, and full parameter explanations. Reasonably complete given constraints.
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%, so description must compensate. It explains 'businessDescription' (host-derived description) and 'imageUrl' (optional onboarding image) but completely omits 'deviceCountry' and 'deviceTimezone', failing to fully cover parameters.
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?
Description clearly states it creates an onboarding session and branding, distinguishing it from most sibling tools which handle other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create_session'.
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?
Description gives context on when to use based on authentication status but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.
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.
Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.
With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.
The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.