connect_public_walletRegister only public wallet metadata. Private keys, seed phrases and mnemonics are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Optional AgentLot al_live_ key when the MCP client cannot set Authorization headers dynamically. Prefer connector-level Bearer auth for persistent integrations. | |
| provider | Yes | ||
| can_spend | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary by stating that private keys, seed phrases, and mnemonics are rejected. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or what happens after registration.
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 short sentences, no wasted words, with the key scoping constraint front-loaded. Every sentence carries meaningful information.
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 tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and only one parameter documented in the schema, this description is too thin. An agent still does not know what provider values mean, how to format chain, what can_spend does, or what the result of registration looks like. The public-only rejection rule is helpful but insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Input schema coverage is only 14%, and the description compensates for only one parameter: 'address' must be a public address rather than a secret. Provider, chain, asset, label, can_spend, and api_key semantics are left mostly unexplained, so an agent lacks meaning for most required and optional fields.
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 names a specific action ('Register') and resource ('public wallet metadata'), and it further scopes the operation by rejecting private keys, seed phrases, and mnemonics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling wallet tools, and the title's 'Connect' vs description's 'Register' introduces a minor wording mismatch.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as get_wallet_providers or list_my_wallets. The description only imposes input restrictions; it does not explain the intended scenario, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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.
There are multiple clusters of near-duplicate tools: earn, earn_now, earn_loop, find_money_opportunities, search_global_earn, and several rank_real_profit_opportunities variants. Even with descriptions, an agent would struggle to choose reliably among dozens of overlapping search, earn, and ranking entry points.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, which provides some consistency. However, the set mixes prefixes like agentlot_, standalone verbs like earn and me, and many semantically interchangeable verbs such as find, search, discover, rank, route, and list applied to similar objects.
With 124 tools, this is an extreme mismatch for a coherent server surface. Even for a broad marketplace, this many entry points creates severe navigation overhead and includes multiple generations of similar tools instead of a disciplined, minimal API.
The tool set broadly covers marketplace lifecycles: listings, requests, orders, delivery, disputes, payouts, projects, and assets. However, there are notable gaps such as updating/unpublishing listings, canceling/refunding orders, and other core lifecycle management operations that would be expected in a complete marketplace surface.