Erase all pricing models and restore a viable default.
Deletes every stored model, then self-initializes a fresh one from the tool registry — all tools at 0 sats with proper UUIDs. Returns the new model.
RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses the destructive behavior (erasing all models), the initialization process, and the returned model. It also notes the access restriction. Slightly more detail about potential side effects could push it to 5.
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 four sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the purpose, second explains the process, third notes the restriction, and fourth implies the return. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys essential information.
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's complexity (destructive reset with auth) and that an output schema exists, the description covers behavior, restriction, return value, and necessary prerequisites. No further details are needed for an AI agent to invoke it 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?
The sole parameter dpop_token is not explained in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. While the description mentions 'requires proof (nsec-signed)', it does not connect this to the parameter, leaving ambiguity about how to provide the proof. The description adds limited semantic value for the parameter.
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 erases all pricing models and restores a viable default, with specific details about initialization. It distinguishes itself from siblings like weather_get_pricing_model and weather_set_pricing_model by being a reset/reinitialize action.
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 specifies that the tool is restricted to operators and requires a signed proof, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like weather_set_pricing_model for partial updates.
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.