Generate up to 20 official affiliate links in sequence, validating the full batch before submission and stopping on any error.
Gera até 20 links oficiais sequencialmente; valida todo o lote antes do envio e interrompe em erro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | Yes | ||
| expected_account_reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| synthetic | Yes | ||
| account_reference | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: sequential generation, whole-batch validation before submission, and fail-fast abort on error. It omits auth prerequisites, rate limits, and whether partially generated links survive an abort.
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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the batch cap before the validation/abort behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the batch cap plus validation/abort semantics. However, for a non-read-only (mutating, non-idempotent) tool it leaves parameter meaning and account/authorization context entirely to an undocumented schema, leaving 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 description coverage is 0% and there are 2 required parameters, yet the description explains neither 'links'/'sub_ids'/'origin_url' nor 'expected_account_reference'. The only parameter-adjacent detail ('até 20') merely restates the schema's maxItems:20 constraint, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 Portuguese description states a specific verb+resource ("Gera... links oficiais") and scopes it as a batch of up to 20, which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular sibling generate_affiliate_link. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so differentiation still requires inference from the name/limit.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like generate_affiliate_link (single) or parse/resolve_product_url. The 'up to 20' limit implies batch usage but the description never tells the agent when the batch tool is preferable to the single-link tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.