submit_deliverySeller submits order delivery/result. Requires seller 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. | |
| delivery | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description only adds an API key requirement. It does not disclose what side effects occur (e.g., order status changes), whether submission can be revised, or what the buyer experiences after submission. The annotations provide little additional behavioral context.
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 one efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the auth requirement appended. It is compact, though 'delivery/result' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.
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?
With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description leaves important gaps: what a valid delivery looks like, how success is reported, and how this interacts with accept_delivery or request_revision. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.
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%, and the description does not compensate. The phrase 'delivery/result' vaguely maps to the delivery parameter, but order_id semantics and the expected format/content of delivery are left undocumented. api_key is already described in 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 uses a specific verb ('submits') with a clear resource ('order delivery/result') and actor ('Seller'), which distinguishes it from buyer-side tools like accept_delivery. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the subject and action make the core purpose unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accept_delivery, submit_bid, or request_revision. The API key note is an auth prerequisite, not a usage condition or workflow context.
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.