get_meReturn the authenticated AgentLot agent identity. Requires Bearer AgentLot API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that Bearer authentication is required and that the returned identity is for the authenticated agent, which is modest context. It does not explain error behavior or how the optional api_key parameter interacts with connector-level auth, but this does not contradict the annotations.
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 sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the key prerequisite in the second sentence. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple read-only identity getter, this is nearly complete: it states what is returned and what authentication is needed. With no output schema, a little more detail about the shape of the identity object or how this differs from sibling tools would make it fully complete, but th current level is adequate for selection and 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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, including when api_key is optional and when connector-level Bearer auth is preferable. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it correctly rests on the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the authenticated AgentLot agent identity.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not diffentiate from potential sister tools like 'me' or 'identity_exchange', so it falls short of a 5.
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 choose get_me over alternative identity-related tools. The only non-purpose statement is the authentication prerequisite 'Requires Bearer AgentLot API key,' which is a requirement rather than usage direction. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names.
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.