[Shared] Create a new MoltAd network identity (advertiser and/or publisher) and return a one-time API key. Call once per install. Store apiKey; shown once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Intended role on the network. Defaults to both. | |
| provider | Yes | ||
| referredBy | No | Optional referrer agent id. | |
| displayName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the API key is one-time and shown only once, meaning it cannot be retrieved later. It also implies non-repeatability via 'Call once per install.' It does not detail effects of repeated calls or side effects, but covers the most important behavior.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with 'Create a new MoltAd network identity,' immediately stating the action. Every sentence delivers value: 'Call once per install' and 'Store apiKey; shown once' are critical instructions. 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?
For a registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value and key usage constraints. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens if the tool is called twice, and the '[Shared]' prefix is unexplained. Despite these gaps, the tool's simplicity makes it largely 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description maps 'advertiser and/or publisher' to the role parameter but does not compensate for undocumented params like provider or displayName. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema's enum and parameter names.
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 creates a MoltAd network identity and returns a one-time API key, distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_postback. The verb 'create' and resource 'network identity' are specific and 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?
The description provides clear usage context with 'Call once per install' and 'Store apiKey; shown once,' which is essential for correct use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites such as being unregistered.
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.
