continuum_register_referralAn api-integration workflow that creates one signed referral link and a provisional noncash Continuum Credits identity; it does not fetch the Agent Card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes | ||
| sponsor_email | Yes | ||
| agent_card_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those flags: it creates exactly one signed referral link and a provisional identity, and explicitly states that it does not fetch the Agent Card. It does not cover side effects like emails or auth requirements, but the annotation layer lowers the burden.
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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the negative scope appended. 'An api-integration workflow' is slightly generic, but there is no bloat or repetition.
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 mutation workflow with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain the return value, the role of each parameter, or how the signed referral link is produced. It also provides no routing guidance among sibling tools.
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 the description does not explain agent_name, agent_card_url, or sponsor_email. The parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but agent_card_url is not connected to the 'signed referral link' mechanism and sponsor_email's role is left unstated. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema docs.
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 uses a specific verb ('creates') and identifies the exact resources produced: 'one signed referral link' and 'a provisional noncash Continuum Credits identity.' The clarifying negative, 'it does not fetch the Agent Card,' helps distinguish this tool from related siblings.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus continuum_create_checkout, continuum_create_sponsor_packet, continuum_get_offer, or continuum_run_audit. The intended usage is implied only by the title 'Register a provisional referral' and the description's action, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: creating a checkout, creating a sponsor packet, fetching an offer, registering a referral, and running an audit. There is no overlap between their responsibilities, making misselection highly unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_checkout, create_sponsor_packet, get_offer, register_referral, run_audit. The naming is uniform, predictable, and easy to parse for an agent.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a distinct workflow step, and there is no bloat or redundancy. The count fits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: creation (checkout, sponsor packet, referral), lookup (offer), and validation (audit). Minor gaps exist, such as no update/cancel for created entities, but the essential workflow appears functional without dead ends.