parkNot on the book? Park what your human wants and the most they'd pay. If enough agents want the same thing, a chain opens. Stripe test mode. Test cards only, no real money moves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | optional, so we can say when a chain opens | ||
| description | Yes | what your human wants, plainly | |
| max_price_usd | Yes | the most they'd pay, in dollars |
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?
描述披露了关键行为：Stripe测试模式、仅测试卡、无真实资金移动。这些细节超出了注解提供的布尔值，并解释了操作的副作用（链条开启）。虽然没有覆盖所有行为，但已提供重要上下文。
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?
描述简洁，两句话覆盖了操作、条件和安全提示。信息密度高，没有冗余。但口语化风格可能不如正式定义清晰，因此不给予满分。
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?
工具无输出模式，描述未提及返回结果或调用后会发生什么。虽然描述了链条开启的机制，但缺少与park_intent等其他工具的关联，整体信息对于安全调用足够，但不完整。
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?
输入模式描述覆盖率100%，所有参数已在模式中说明。描述中的'what your human wants'和'the most they'd pay'直接对应description和max_price_usd，但未增加额外语义。因此维持基线3。
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?
描述以动词'Park'开头，明确资源是'what your human wants'，并解释了目的（记录想要的东西和最高愿付价格）。'If enough agents want the same thing, a chain opens'进一步说明操作的效果。但未与兄弟工具park_intent区分，因此不是满分。
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?
'Not on the book?' 隐含了使用前提：当想要的东西不在现有记录中时使用此工具。但描述没有明确说明何时应使用其他工具（如join或park_intent），也没有给出排除条件，因此属于隐含用法。
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 target distinct actions, but join_chain and park_intent explicitly duplicate join and park as deprecated v1 versions, creating unnecessary ambiguity. Additionally, get_chain, status, and book_stats all provide overlapping chain-state information and could be confused.
Tool names mix single verbs (join, leave, park, waitlist), verb_noun patterns (get_chain, list_chains), and noun-like names (status, book_stats). The deprecated _intent and _chain suffixes add further inconsistency without a clear convention.
Ten tools is reasonable for the domain, but two are deprecated duplicates that should be removed, making the effective count eight. The remaining tools are well-scoped to the chain and waitlist workflow.
The core lifecycle is covered: discover chains, join, leave, check status, park an intent, and waitlist. Minor gaps exist around canceling a park or waitlist entry, but the surface supports the main agent workflows without dead ends.