[Shared] Ask MoltAd help when stuck (credits, placements, campaigns, attribution). Returns next tools; platform support reviews the session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| stuckState | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns next tools' and that 'platform support reviews the session', which conveys the output and a side effect (session review). This is helpful, though it does not detail error handling or other potential behaviors.
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 sentence with a short trailing clause, front-loaded with the core action 'Ask MoltAd help when stuck'. Every word earns its place; no verbose or redundant text.
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 tool is relatively simple, but the absence of parameter explanations and an output schema leaves gaps. The description covers the overall purpose and outcome, but not the details needed to correctly populate the parameters, making it only partially complete.
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 schema lists four parameters (context, provider, question, stuckState) with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what these parameters mean, how they relate to each other, or how to format the question. The only implicit link is that 'question' is the natural input for asking help, but the others remain opaque.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Ask MoltAd help when stuck', with a scope covering credits, placements, campaigns, and attribution. It also distinguishes itself by noting it returns 'next tools' and triggers platform support review, setting it apart from action-oriented sibling tools.
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 phrase 'when stuck' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the mention of specific areas (credits, placements, campaigns, attribution) helps the agent choose it as a fallback. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools to use instead or exclude cases where a direct action tool is more appropriate.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping or misleading purposes: buy_campaign and buy_placement are aliases of create_campaign, list_placement actually creates a placement, and get_attribution/get_campaign both provide campaign stats. The report_* tools are distinct but similarly named, increasing selection risk.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are notable deviations: buy_campaign/buy_placement use 'buy' instead of 'create', list_placement is a creator not a lister, and simple nouns like 'wallet' and 'whoami' break the convention.
At 31 tools, the server feels heavy. Several tools are redundant aliases (buy_campaign, buy_placement) or could be consolidated (multiple report_* and list_* variants), making the surface unnecessarily large for the ad marketplace domain.
The core lifecycle is covered: campaign/placement creation, delivery, reporting, attribution, refunds, and cashouts. However, there are gaps like no update_campaign, no true list_placements, and no get_placement, leaving some workflows incomplete.
