Reprice or unlist something the user already sells. Use when they want to raise, lower or change a price, make a tool free, pause selling it, or take it off the market. Requires the api_key from register_server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your seller key. | |
| is_active | No | Set false to stop selling this tool. | |
| price_usd | No | New price per call in USD. Minimum 0.01. | |
| tool_name | Yes | Exact name of the tool to update. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the kinds of mutations (reprice, unlist, pause) and the api_key prerequisite. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it does not go into detail about what happens to existing listings or return behavior, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and the second lists specific use cases and the prerequisite. No filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and moderately complex behavior, the description covers the primary scenarios (price changes, unlisting) and prerequisites. The only notable gap is the 'free' wording conflicting with schema minimum, and no mention of return values, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the origin of api_key (from register_server), which is helpful. However, it says 'make a tool free' while the schema sets a minimum of 0.01 for price_usd, which is misleading and could lead to an invalid call. This modest extra value is offset by the potential confusion.
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 'Reprice or unlist' and the resource ('something the user already sells'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings, get_my_listing, list_registered_servers, and register_server. The scope is unambiguous: only modifying existing listings, not creating new ones or reading.
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 lists the scenarios for use: 'raise, lower or change a price, make a tool free, pause selling it, or take it off the market.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires the api_key from register_server'), which helps the agent know when to invoke register_server first. No explicit exclusions, but the sibling context and the 'already sells' phrasing make alternatives clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: earnings reporting, listing review, marketplace browsing, server registration, pricing changes, and ownership verification. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent will not confuse them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_earnings, get_my_listing, list_registered_servers, register_server, set_tool_price, verify_ownership. The style is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer what each tool does.
Six tools is well-scoped for a payment and marketplace server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of the seller workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for sellers: registering a server, managing prices, viewing earnings, reviewing listing, and verifying ownership. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated purpose.