무료 계정을 만든다(이메일·결제 없음). 개인 핸드오프 한도(월 20개)를 받는다. 반환된 api_key를 MCP 클라이언트 Authorization 헤더에 넣거나 baton_pass에 전달. 익명 체험(월 5개) 초과 시 여기로.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "baton_signup"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | 직접 정할 키(12자+). 없으면 자동 생성 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses account creation and limits, but omits behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 fairly concise but mixes purpose, usage instructions, and limits in a single block. It could be better structured with separate sentences for different aspects.
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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (api_key) and how to use it, as well as relevant limits. It is complete for a simple signup tool.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described in schema). The description adds meaning by stating the api_key is optional, must be 12+ characters, and auto-generated if omitted, which exceeds the schema's detail.
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 creates a free account without email or payment, and returns an api_key. It distinguishes from anonymous trial by mentioning the 5/month limit, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 provides context for when to use the tool (creating a free account, after anonymous trial limit), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.
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.