Prepare a wallet-first update for an existing ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agent. If metadata changes require an on-chain URI update, the response describes that action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Raw update payload expected by the worker, including network plus agentId or assetAddress and the requested fields to change | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but falls short. It mentions that the response may describe an on-chain URI update if metadata changes, but it does not clarify whether the tool actually mutates state, returns a signed transaction, or is a preparation step only. Key information about the tool's effect is missing.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and every sentence adds value, though it could briefly mention the relationship to finalize_agent_update without much added length.
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 has a nested payload and no output schema, so the description should explain what the response looks like and how it fits into the update workflow. It mentions the conditional URI update action but fails to mention that a subsequent finalize step is needed, leaving the agent without full context for using the tool correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond mentioning that metadata changes might affect the response, but it does not clarify payload structure or session token scope beyond what the schema 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 the tool prepares a wallet-first update for an existing ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agent, specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling finalize_agent_update by using 'prepare' and noting conditional on-chain URI updates, making the purpose 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 usage is implied through 'prepare' and the update context, but it does not explicitly state that this is the first step before finalize_agent_update, nor does it mention when not to use the tool or alternatives. Sibling tools like finalize_agent_update suggest a workflow, but the description does not reference 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 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.