Replace an expiring API key with a new one valid for 90 days. Submit your current key and agent ID to deactivate the old key and receive a fresh credential.
Refresh your API key if it's expiring. Returns a new api_key valid for 90 days. Your old key is deactivated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your current api_key | |
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of your agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the old key is deactivated (destructive behavior) and that the new key is valid for 90 days. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the purpose, return value, and side effects comprehensively for a simple tool. It does not specify behavior when the key is not expiring (e.g., whether it still works as a forced refresh), but this is a minor gap. No output schema, but the return value is described.
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% with both 'api_key' and 'agent_id' having descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb 'refresh' and resource 'API key', includes the condition 'if it's expiring', and states the return value (new api_key valid for 90 days) and side effect (old key deactivated). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are unrelated finance and trading operations.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('if it's expiring'), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the condition is sufficient for this simple tool. No contradictions with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.