Agent Vault storage usage and plan for the wallet behind a compute API key: bytes used/reserved, free vs pro plan, caps, and Vault Pro pricing.
| 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool performs write operations, requires authentication, has rate limits, or if the API key is used for identification only. The description describes output content but not side effects, permissions, or limits.
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 sentence, efficiently stating what the tool returns and for whom. It front-loads the core purpose (storage usage and plan) and includes specific details. No filler or repetition.
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 tool has one parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for its purpose and return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs vault_subscribe_pro or other vault tools, and does not mention error cases or side effects.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by connecting the computeApiKey to 'the wallet behind' it and specifies the return data structure, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on valid key formats or error handling for invalid keys.
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 retrieves storage usage and plan information for the wallet linked to a compute API key. It enumerates the returned data: bytes used/reserved, free vs pro plan, caps, and pricing. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on marketplace, endpoints, campaigns, and other unrelated operations.
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 used to check storage and plan details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are vault-related tools (e.g., vault_subscribe_pro, vault_list_snapshots) that could be confused, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are given.
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.