Place a paid social marketing order by providing a service ID, target link or account, and quantity. Pay 3 USDC on Base via x402.
Place a social marketing order (paid) (costs 3 USDC on Base via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | Ziel-URL/-Account | |
| quantity | Yes | ||
| serviceId | Yes | SMMPanel Service-ID | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is paid and costs 3 USDC on Base via x402, which is meaningful behavioral context, but omits mutation side effects, failure/refund behavior, idempotency, and auth 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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the cost. The stacked parentheticals are slightly awkward but every element earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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 payment-bearing mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at prerequisites (obtaining serviceId) and payment/error flow. It covers cost but leaves the surrounding workflow gaps that the sibling set implies.
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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (including a careful note on confirmNewPurchase). The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. that serviceId must come from smm_services), so the near-high coverage baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Place a social marketing order'), which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate from smm siblings like smm_quote, smm_refill, or smm_status, leaving the agent to infer the ordering workflow from names.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no prerequisites are given. The agent is not told to run smm_quote or fetch serviceId from smm_services first, nor when a repeat purchase (confirmNewPurchase) is appropriate beyond what the parameter schema says.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.