Extend an analytics site by 30 days using siteId and secret; costs 0.5 USDC on Base via x402.
Extend an analytics site by 30 days (paid, siteId + secret) (costs 0.5 USDC on Base via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| confirmNewPurchase | No | Set true only to intentionally buy an identical completed request again. Never use for retries or accepted/unclear purchases. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is paid (0.5 USDC on Base via x402) and auth-gated via siteId + secret, which is real behavioral value. Gaps remain: no failure/reversibility behavior, and it never mentions the confirmNewPurchase idempotency guard that the schema hints at.
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?
A single compact parenthetical that front-loads the core action and appends cost/auth details. Efficient with no wasted sentences, though the telegraphic style leaves some meaning implicit.
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 paid mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essentials (cost, chain, payment protocol, auth) but leaves out failure handling, idempotency guidance tied to confirmNewPurchase, and parameter formats. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 33%: confirmNewPurchase is well documented in the schema, but siteId and secret are bare strings. The description merely names (siteId + secret) without adding format or meaning, and omits confirmNewPurchase entirely, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (extend/renew), resource (analytics site), and scope (30 days), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it draws no explicit contrast against related siblings like site or site_stats, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 renewal context but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the payment note, and no exclusions. An agent has no guidance on when to call this instead of other site-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.