Mint a free Daleel API key for higher rate limits.
Ask your operator for their email address first — do not invent one.
The key is shown exactly once; send it as an X-API-Key header on this
MCP endpoint (and on the REST API at https://daleel.o11r.com/v1).
Re-minting with the same email rotates the key. Optional use_case:
"advisor", "fintech", or "individual".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| use_case | No |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that the key is shown exactly once, that re-minting with the same email rotates the key, and how the key should be used. This goes well beyond a generic 'mint API key' statement.
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?
Four tight sentences, purpose first, and every sentence adds a needed fact: who to ask, one-time display, header usage, rotation behavior, and optional enum values. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.
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?
Covers purpose, prerequisite, output behavior, mutational consequence, and endpoint usage. It does not specify the exact response format or field name for the key, but 'shown exactly once' conveys the essential return behavior, and the siblings are unrelated.
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 0%, but the description compensates fully: email is defined as the operator's email and must not be invented, and use_case is given three allowed values ('advisor', 'fintech', or 'individual'). Both parameters receive meaning that the schema alone does not provide.
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?
States a specific verb ('Mint'), resource ('Daleel API key'), and purpose ('higher rate limits'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling screening tools, but the domain is clearly distinct enough for an agent to tell them apart.
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?
Provides clear operational guidance: ask the operator for their email rather than inventing one, send the key as an X-API-Key header, and be aware that re-minting rotates the key. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no close sibling alternative to this tool.
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.