[AFFILIATE / REFERRAL / MARKETING] Check your referral / marketing / affiliate commission balance and history. Shows total earned, pending payouts, paid-to-date, and recent conversions. Identified by wallet. Works for humans and AI agents alike.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Your marketing agent wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context like 'Identified by wallet' and 'Works for humans and AI agents alike,' but it does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose potential limitations such as pagination or rate limits. Since the operation is read-only and low-risk, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences with a category tag, front-loaded with the main purpose. It provides all necessary details without fluff, making it concise and well-structured.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the key return fields (total earned, pending payouts, paid-to-date, recent conversions) and explains the wallet identification. However, it could have mentioned whether the history is paginated or time-bound, but this is not critical for basic usage.
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 schema already documents the wallet_address parameter thoroughly with a clear description. The tool description adds only minor reinforcement ('Identified by wallet'), which is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 checks commission balance and history, with specific details like total earned, pending payouts, paid-to-date, and recent conversions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_points_balance by focusing specifically on commissions.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (to check referral/affiliate commission information). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer it should use this tool for commission-related queries.
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.
Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.
The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.
The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.