generate_api_key

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the API key is returned only once (ephemeral nature), requires immediate saving, and outlines rate limits and tier differences (free vs. paid). It misses details like error handling or authentication requirements, but covers critical operational aspects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the tier details (free, calibration, edge) could be more concise, as they occupy multiple lines without adding critical guidance for tool invocation. Most sentences earn their place, but some trimming would improve efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, behavioral traits (key generation, one-time return, tier limits), and usage context. It lacks details on output format or error cases, but for a tool with simple parameters and clear intent, it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (owner_id and owner_email). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format or usage examples). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Generate a free TeleKash API key for rate-limited access to prediction market intelligence.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('API key'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (which are data retrieval tools, not key generation 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 clear context on when to use this tool: to obtain API access for using other tools. It implicitly suggests alternatives (upgrading tiers for more features) but does not explicitly name when NOT to use it or compare to specific sibling tools. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.