Finalize a wallet-first update for an existing ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agent after any required on-chain transaction has been sent from the same wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Raw finalize payload expected by the worker, including network plus agentId or assetAddress and any txHash/txSignature/tokenUri fields | |
| sessionToken | Yes | Wallet session token with erc8004_manage, erc8004_update, or erc8004_register scope |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at mutation (finalize) and the wallet-first precondition, but it does not mention side effects, return values, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys action, resource, and timing.
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?
This is part of a multi-step wallet-first flow with a nested payload object and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, completion status, or how to construct the payload beyond the schema. More context about the expected response and the full flow would be needed for reliable invocation.
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 100%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions (sessionToken scopes, payload contents). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Finalize') with a clear resource ('wallet-first update for an existing ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agent') and adds the timing context ('after any required on-chain transaction has been sent from the same wallet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_agent_update and finalize_agent_registration.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after the on-chain transaction has been sent from the same wallet. This provides a clear temporal guideline and implies it should follow prepare_agent_update, 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.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.