List completed Agent Vault snapshots (encrypted backups) for this wallet, optionally filtered to one agent. Use this to check WHEN an agent was last backed up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | No | Filter to one vault agent id (uuid) | |
| 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 convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List completed snapshots') with no implied side effects. The requirement for 'computeApiKey' implies authorization. However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, response structure, or any limitations, which is noticeable given the absence of an output schema.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the action and then give a usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 that there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the structure of returned snapshots (e.g., 'returns snapshot IDs, timestamps, and status'). It does mention that the tool can be used to check backup time, implying timestamps are included, but this is indirect. The lack of sibling differentiation is mitigated by the clear purpose, but overall completeness is adequate rather than excellent.
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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that filtering is optional ('optionally filtered to one agent') but does not explain format or behavior. For 'computeApiKey', the schema already provides a detailed description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with the action verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'completed Agent Vault snapshots (encrypted backups) for this wallet', which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also mentions optional filtering by agent, differentiating it from related sibling tools like 'vault_list_agents' and 'vault_usage'.
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 a use case: 'Use this to check WHEN an agent was last backed up.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest any alternative tools from the sibling list, which would strengthen guidance.
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.