[Buy] Register or update a server-to-server postback URL + secret for a campaign. MoltAd fires it on report_conversion (cpa/cpl/cpi) with an HMAC signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | No | Which events to receive; defaults to ['conversion']. | |
| secret | No | Shared secret used to HMAC-sign postback payloads. Generated if omitted. | |
| campaignId | Yes | ||
| postbackUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates/updates a postback and that MoltAd will fire it on report_conversion with an HMAC signature. However, it does not mention whether existing postbacks are overwritten, what auth/permissions are needed, or what response to expect, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and adds a concise behavioral note about the trigger and signature. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential workflow: what to provide, what happens when the event occurs, and the signing mechanism. It lacks some detail about return values or failure modes, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.
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 50%: events and secret have descriptions, while campaignId and postbackUrl do not. The description adds meaning by explaining the postback URL is server-to-server and that the secret is used for HMAC signing, but it does not further elaborate on campaignId or the events array beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Register or update a server-to-server postback URL + secret for a campaign', naming the exact action, target resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like report_conversion by explaining that MoltAd fires the postback on conversion events.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to set up or modify postback notifications for a campaign. It mentions the trigger event and use case (cpa/cpl/cpi), effectively implying the appropriate scenario, though it does not explicitly name alternatives 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.
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.
