Update a published API listing securely using signed wallet authentication. Modify endpoint, pricing, description, or metadata to keep your monetized API current.
Update a published Apiosk API with signed wallet auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| active | No | ||
| price_usd | No | ||
| wallet_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| endpoint_url | No | ||
| listing_metadata | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'with signed wallet auth' adds a concrete behavioral requirement not present in the annotations. The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but it leaves unspecified whether the update is partial or full and what side effects occur on the published API.
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 a single concise sentence that leads with the action verb. It wastes no words, though it may be too sparse to fully support the tool's complexity.
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 tool with seven optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and several sibling tools with overlapping API-management concerns, this description is not complete. It lacks information about update semantics, return values, and how 'signed wallet auth' is supplied, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional investigation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions 'signed wallet auth' and gives no detail on parameters like slug, active, price_usd, or listing_metadata. The parameter names are self-descriptive to a degree, but the interaction between them and the update semantics are left entirely to inference.
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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a published Apiosk API', which clearly identifies this as a modification operation distinct from wallet-management siblings like apiosk_update_wallet. It does not enumerate what fields can be updated, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as apiosk_publish_api or apiosk_configure. It also omits any prerequisites like needing an existing slug or wallet authentication setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.