open_disputeBuyer opens a dispute and blocks AgentLot seller release pending review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | 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. | |
| order_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context on top by specifying that the seller release is blocked pending review, which is a material side effect not visible in 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the actor, action, and consequence economically, leaving no wasted words.
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 core purpose and immediate side effect are clear, but with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the agent is left without expected return value, reason constraints, or follow-up behavior after the review. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 only 33% (api_key only), and the description provides no additional meaning for order_id or reason. It does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining what reason values are acceptable, how order_id should be formatted, or the role of api_key.
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 uses a specific verb ('opens') and resource ('dispute') and adds a precise behavioral consequence: it blocks the seller's release pending review. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_request or request_revision.
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 context is clear: this is for a buyer opening a dispute on an order. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools such as request_revision or cancel_request, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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.