List the agents registered in Agent Vault for this wallet (OpenClaw, Hermes, pods, and custom --path lineages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| computeApiKey | Yes | Singularity compute API key (dashboard → Settings → API Keys, or minted by `agentvault login`) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies a read operation ('List') but omits any mention of authentication requirements beyond the implied wallet context, rate limits, pagination behavior, or side effects. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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, self-contained sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List the agents registered in Agent Vault for this wallet') and appends clarifying detail in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks differentiation from similar listings (e.g., 'list_agents') and does not specify what the returned data contains (e.g., agent IDs, statuses). With many sibling tools, additional context would improve completeness.
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% for the single parameter, which already includes a clear explanation of the computeApiKey parameter (how to obtain it). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agents registered in Agent Vault for this wallet'), and adds distinguishing details via the parenthetical list of agent types (OpenClaw, Hermes, pods, custom --path lineages). This helps the agent differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_agents' or 'list_my_registered_agents'.
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 this tool is for listing vault agents scoped to the current wallet, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_agents' or 'list_my_registered_agents'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sister tools.
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.