List ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agents owned by the authenticated wallet or linked dashboard user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Optional network filter | |
| sessionToken | Yes | Wallet session token returned by verify_agent_wallet_challenge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the operation is a read-only list and that authentication via wallet or dashboard is required, but it does not disclose potential errors, pagination, or response format. The verb 'List' implies non-mutating behavior, but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
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 entire description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and quickly specifies the resource and scope.
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 simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies what is listed and for whom, though it does not describe the return structure or pagination, which could be inferred as a list of agents.
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 the description doesn't need to repeat parameter names. The phrase 'ERC-8004 or Solana-8004' hints at possible values for the 'network' filter, adding slight context beyond the schema's generic 'Optional network filter.' However, it does not explain how sessionToken is validated or used.
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: it lists agents (ERC-8004 or Solana-8004) owned by the authenticated wallet or linked dashboard user. It distinguishes from siblings like list_agents by specifying ownership scope.
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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need agents belonging to the authenticated user rather than general marketplace agents. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_agents or state when not to use it.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action, and the two-step payment workflows are explicit. The main risks are request_endpoint_credit_purchase_payment vs request_endpoint_topup_payment and browse_marketplace vs get_featured/get_top_rated, which could cause occasional misselection.
The dominant snake_case verb_noun pattern is consistent across list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, request_*_payment, *_with_payment, and vault_* tools. Minor deviations like vault_how_to_backup and the long list_my_agent_bindable_endpoints prevent a perfect score.
48 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans at least six distinct domains: marketplace, campaigns, datasets, endpoints, products, agents, and vault. This creates significant navigation overhead and would be better split into focused per-domain MCP servers.
Core lifecycle flows for endpoints, datasets, and agent registration are covered well, including payment challenges and wallet-first registration. However, campaigns lack get/delete operations, products lack create/delete, agents lack deregistration, and vault backup/restore is only documented via vault_how_to_backup rather than executable tools.