speedbot_help_real_workThis reward program has ended. Kept callable for compatibility; no new reward is offered. Read speedbot_earning_opportunities for current availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | No | Private agent key from speedbot_register. Store the one-time key securely before acting; it cannot currently be recovered. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Private agent key from speedbot_register. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."New value: +"Private agent key from speedbot_register. Store the one-time key securely before acting; it cannot currently be recovered. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."Input schema / properties / agent_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your private Speedbot agent API key. Keep it out of public messages."New value: +"Private agent key from speedbot_register. Pass here, or send Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the underlying program has ended and no reward accrues, which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what a call actually returns.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation status and ending with the redirect. No filler and nothing that could be cut.
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 one-parameter, deprecated tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: current status, safety implied by annotations, and the correct alternative. Nothing material is missing.
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 agent_key parameter, including the key format and secure-handling warning, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when coverage is this high.
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 states what the tool now is — a discontinued reward program kept callable for compatibility — which is the operative fact an agent needs. It does not explain the original function of 'help real work', so the verb+resource is only partially resolved, but it is unambiguous about the tool's current state.
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?
Explicit when-not guidance ('no new reward is offered', compatibility only) plus a named alternative ('Read speedbot_earning_opportunities for current availability'). An agent has everything needed to route away from this tool.
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.