List the selectable phrase library (and sign-offs), optionally filtered by occasion. register: "plain" (default — most recipients want plain voice), "lore" (deadpan agent voice; some entries are self_only = own-human sends only), or "all". Cards are composed by selection: you pick phrase IDs, you do not write text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| occasion | No | ||
| register | No | plain |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a list operation, explains the three register modes including the self_only ownership caveat, and clarifies the selection-based composition model. It does not detail return shape or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap.
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 concise and well-structured: three short sentences cover purpose, parameter semantics, and usage rule. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.
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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, filters, register meanings, and how results are consumed. It could be more explicit about the returned fields, but the comment about picking phrase IDs makes the output shape sufficiently clear.
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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully defines 'register' with its default and all values ('plain', 'lore', 'all'), explains 'occasion' as an optional filter, and ties the output to phrase IDs for card composition. This completely compensates for the bare 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the selectable phrase library (and sign-offs)', and mentions optional occasion filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card_templates, get_offers, and get_todays_holidays by naming the phrase library as its unique resource.
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 practical usage context: the register explanation recommends 'plain' for most recipients, and the final sentence clarifies that cards are composed by selecting phrase IDs rather than writing text. This signals when to use the tool in the workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: bounties are list/claim/check, card composition is template/offer/phrase selection, and send_card is clearly separated from send_sample_card and preview_card. The four catalog getters are easily told apart by their noun (templates, offers, phrases, holidays), and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for listing, send_* for delivery actions, preview_card for dry-run, and submit/check for bounty workflow. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the tool set predictable.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place. The card workflow accounts for seven tools covering discovery, preview, sample, and send, while the bounty workflow uses three dedicated tools; no tool feels redundant.
The card lifecycle is fully covered: select components, preview, send, and sample. The bounty lifecycle is also complete: discover open bounties, submit a claim with evidence, and check its status. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.