Claim a code offer for the user: mints a single-use redemption code they show the merchant in person. Use only once the user has decided to take a specific offer (confirm the details first). Returns the code and how to redeem it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer_id | Yes | The offer id from offers_find / offers_get |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool creates a single-use code, that it is for in-person redemption, and that it returns the code and redemption instructions. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so the description fills in the operational details well.
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 three sentences long, front-loading the core action and output, followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description fully explains the purpose, usage context, expected output, and behavioral traits. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'offer_id', which already explains it comes from offers_find/offers_get. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 states the tool claims a code offer for the user, mints a single-use redemption code, and indicates the code is shown to the merchant in person. This distinguishes it from sibling tools offers_find and offers_get which are for listing and retrieving offers.
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 says 'Use only once the user has decided to take a specific offer (confirm the details first).' This gives clear instructions on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though siblings are implied by context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search, detail retrieval, and claiming an offer. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'offers_<verb>' (accept, find, get), making naming predictable.
Three tools are minimal but exactly cover the core operations for an offers system: search, view details, and redeem. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers search, read, and claim actions. Missing update or delete for offers, but these may be outside the user-facing scope. Generally complete for the domain.
