freeze_test_cardCancels the card (no further authorizations). Idempotent. Auto-freeze runs daily for any card past its 24h expiry; call this explicitly to freeze immediately after a successful checkout test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | The test card ID returned by provision_test_card. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Tool result payload (JSON object) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims the tool is 'Idempotent,' but the annotations set 'idempotentHint' to false, creating a direct contradiction. While it correctly identifies the tool as destructive, the contradiction undermines 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?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the core action. No extraneous information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and usage context, but the contradiction regarding idempotency introduces significant confusion. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value details, but the misleading claim reduces completeness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter 'cardId' clearly described as 'The test card ID returned by provision_test_card,' the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Cancels') and resource ('card'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like provision_test_card and list_test_cards by focusing on cancellation. The mention of idempotency and auto-freeze provides additional clarity.
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 explicitly advises calling this tool to freeze immediately after a successful checkout test, and notes that auto-freeze handles cards past their 24h expiry. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
The tools cover a wide range of functionalities, but each has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, submit_test, submit_test_batch, submit_combo, and submit_interaction_scene are all different types of submissions with unique parameters. However, the sheer number of tools (43) might cause some initial confusion, but descriptors resolve ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_project, get_test_results). The only exception is 'whoami', which is a common idiom and does not break the pattern. Overall, naming is highly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single server. The domain is broad (testing, worker marketplace, credits, cards, feedback, video), so the count is justifiable. However, it borders on being overwhelming, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple submit_* variants).
The tool surface covers core workflows like project creation, test submission, result retrieval, worker management, and credit operations. However, there are gaps: no update or delete for projects, no delete for worker offerings, and no user-facing combo editing (though combos are predefined). These are minor but noticeable.