Update default cashback_rate and/or points_per_dollar for a program (same as merchant dashboard sliders)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cashback_rate | No | New default cashback % for earn (1–100). Omit to leave unchanged. | |
| token_address | Yes | Token contract address (0x...) | |
| points_per_dollar | No | New points per $1 (0–1000, exclusive 0). Omit to leave unchanged. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "cashback_rate"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "points_per_dollar"
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation and the description's 'update default' phrasing is consistent. However, it doesn't disclose whether changes affect already-issued earn events, permission/auth requirements, or reversibility—context an agent would want for a config mutation.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the mutation target and its effect with zero filler. Nothing extraneous.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes but omits what the response returns, whether other settings remain untouched (schema implies via omission), and any activation/permission prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps given no output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cashback_rate, points_per_dollar) and their ranges are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the parameter names and adds the slider analogy, which conveys intent but not new semantics beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update default cashback_rate and/or points_per_dollar for a program') and clarifies the effect with the merchant-dashboard-slider analogy. It's clear what changes, though it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like create_loyalty_program or generate_program_defaults.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as generate_program_defaults or create_loyalty_program, nor preconditions like program ownership or activation state. The agent must infer usage context entirely.
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.