create_key
Get a free redeal API key. No signup, no email — this is the entire onboarding. The key is shown once; store it. Use it as api_key in create_deal.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Redeal
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical trait: the key is shown exactly once, so it must be stored. It also notes there is no signup/email, conveying simplicity. It does not mention expiration or regeneration, but enough context is given for a free key tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, with the first sentence stating the primary action. Each subsequent sentence adds essential information (key shown once, how to use it) without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, the onboarding context, a crucial warning (store the key), and integration with create_deal. Nothing critical is missing for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage by default. The description adds no parameter details (none exist) but clarifies that the key is displayed once and used as api_key in create_deal, which explains the output semantics without needing to discuss inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool obtains a free API key with the specific phrase 'Get a free redeal API key.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing this as the entire onboarding step, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to use this tool: it is the entire onboarding process, with no signup or email required. It also tells how to apply the result ('Use it as api_key in create_deal'), providing clear context relative to the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct role in the deal lifecycle: key creation, deal creation, algorithm listing, input validation, commitment computation, committing, revealing, entropy retrieval, certificate fetching, and certificate verification. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_deal, get_certificate, verify_certificate). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and match the tool's function. There is no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for the fairness deal domain. Each tool earns its place, covering onboarding, deal creation, input handling, execution, and verification without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: create key, create deal, inspect algorithms, validate inputs, compute commitments, commit, reveal, fetch entropy for random deals, retrieve certificates, and verify them. The main gap is a tool for counterparties to accept/join a deal using the invite token, but this may be handled outside the MCP server.