Self-report the human owner email for this unclaimed agent. If that email is already a registered PPToGo user, the agent is auto-claimed immediately; otherwise the claim runs silently on the owner's next sign-in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Owner email address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: it auto-claims immediately if the email is already registered, otherwise it silently runs on the next sign-in. This gives the agent more than the annotations alone would provide, despite not detailing error paths or edge cases.
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 efficient sentences, with the core action and the conditional behavior. Every phrase earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of annotations, and the description is immediately informative.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key scenario and behavior. It doesn't mention return values or non-claimed presentation, but that's not critical for a simple setter. A tiny gap is that 'unclaimed agent' is not further defined, but context and tool name make it clear.
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?
The schema already describes 'email' as 'Owner email address' with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'human owner email' echoes the same concept without essential new detail, and it doesn't expand on formatting or constraints. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Self-report the human owner email for this unclaimed agent.' It clearly identifies what the tool does, including the scope ('unclaimed agent'), and adds a useful conditional outcome. This is distinct from any sibling tool and leaves little room for ambiguity.
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 gives clear contextual guidance: use it to claim an unclaimed agent by reporting the owner email, with a concrete outcome depending on whether the email matches a registered PPToGo user. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unclaimed-agent framing implies when not to use it, and no sibling tool competes for this purpose.
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.
Most tools clearly target distinct resources and actions, but there is some overlap: get_profile and get_my_earnings both expose balance/cap information, and list_my_profiles could be confused with get_profile. The descriptions are generally clear enough to avoid serious misselection.
Every tool name follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_product, list_campaigns, submit_post, update_profile, etc. The verbs match the intended actions, and there are no mixed naming conventions or vague style deviations.
Twenty tools is slightly heavy, but the count is reasonable for the scope: the server covers products, campaigns, posts, earnings, profiles, notifications, asset uploads, and AI tool usage/reviews. Each tool serves a recognizable purpose, so the size feels like breadth rather than redundancy.
Core workflows are present—search products, get campaigns, apply, generate tracking links, submit posts, view earnings, manage notifications—but there are notable gaps. There is no way to list past posts or retrieve a post_id except from submit_post, no list of campaign applications, and no tool discovery endpoint for the AI tool slugs used by declare_tool_usage and write_tool_review.
