Get one offer by id: full details, redemption terms, validity, and the merchant's verification record (whether AITWIRE has independently measured the merchant, with accuracy statistics when it has).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer_id | Yes | The offer id from offers_find |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by detailing what the response includes (redemption terms, validity, merchant verification with accuracy statistics). It accurately portrays a non-destructive read operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that concisely conveys the tool's action and output without extraneous 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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what information is returned, supported by clear annotations.
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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('by id') but does not add new meaning or constraints beyond the schema.
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 'Get one offer by id' and enumerates the specific information returned (full details, redemption terms, validity, merchant verification record). This distinguishes it from sibling tools offers_find and offers_accept, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage context by referencing 'The offer id from offers_find', indicating a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.
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.
