request_api_keyProvision a prepaid ActionGate API key with $1.00 of starter credits for this operator email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Operator email address that should own the API key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the prepaid $1.00 credit amount and that the key is provisioned for the operator email, giving useful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no superfluous words. Every phrase (prepaid, $1.00, starter credits, operator email) adds distinct value.
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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, recipient, and funding detail. It does not explicitly mention what the response returns (e.g., the key itself) or prerequisites like email verification, but these are minor given the annotations and the tool's simplicity.
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 schema fully describes 'email' as the operator email that should own the key, and the description simply confirms this with 'for this operator email.' No additional parameter meaning is provided, so the schema carries the semantic burden; the description adds no new syntax or format details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Provision') and resource ('prepaid ActionGate API key') with precise details ($1.00 of starter credits, operator email). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'top_up' (adding credits later) and 'balance' (checking credits).
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 implies this tool is used when an operator needs a new API key with initial credits, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'top_up' or 'balance'. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage guidance is only implied.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: balance for credit check, request_api_key and top_up for key lifecycle, and policy_gate, risk_score, and simulate for action evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: simulate is a bare verb, request_api_key is verb_object, top_up is a phrasal verb, while balance, policy_gate, and risk_score are noun-like compounds. The mix of conventions makes the set feel inconsistent.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for this server's purpose, covering both financial management (balance, top_up, request_api_key) and action evaluation (policy_gate, risk_score, simulate). No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The server covers the core workflows: creating a key, checking balance, topping up, and evaluating actions. However, it lacks lifecycle operations like revoking or deleting a key, and there is no way to retrieve key details beyond balance, which leaves some gaps.