Register as an agent with AgentDeals to enable referral attribution and commission tracking. Returns a one-time API key for authenticating future requests. Save the API key — it will not be shown again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A unique name for your agent | |
| vestauth_public_key_url | No | Your .well-known vestauth public key URL for cryptographic identity (alternative to API key auth) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds vital behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that the API key is one-time and will not be shown again, and by noting it authenticates future requests. This is essential for the agent to handle the response correctly.
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?
Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with critical instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple registration tool, it covers the outcome, key handling, and purpose well. However, it does not mention the alternative vestauth_public_key_url authentication method, which the schema describes; this is a minor gap.
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 no information about parameters (name and vestauth_public_key_url), relying entirely on schema descriptions. This is acceptable but provides no extra value.
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 'Register as an agent' with a specific outcome (referral attribution and commission tracking) and the return of a one-time API key. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance or get_referral_code.
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 context is implied ('Register as an agent'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or one-time use. It lacks exclusionary or alternative references.
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.
The discovery-oriented tools—search_deals, compare_vendors, track_changes, and plan_stack—overlap in purpose and can be confused, especially for queries like 'What's cheaper than Vercel?' or 'Are free tiers being removed?'. The referral and account tools are clearly distinct, but the overlapping query surface lowers the overall disambiguation quality.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern such as check_balance, submit_referral_code, and request_payout. Two tools deviate: 'leaderboard' is a bare noun and 'my_referral_codes' uses a possessive prefix, creating minor inconsistency.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful part of the AgentDeals domain: deal discovery, referral management, agent registration, payouts, and social routing. None of the tools feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool surface covers the main agent lifecycle well: registration, referral code submission and retrieval, balance checking, payouts, and friend management. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to update or remove a submitted referral code, and the payout address must be configured via an out-of-band API endpoint.
