[PLAY] Discover an easter egg from get_world_eggs and reveal its film. For a gated egg, pass your answer to the challenge; open eggs need none. The first discovery banks the reward to your wallet. Returns the video URL. Eggs are content, not listings: there is nothing to buy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | No | Answer to the challenge (gated eggs only) | |
| egg_slug | Yes | Egg slug from get_world_eggs | |
| agent_wallet | Yes | Your agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the first discovery banks a reward to the wallet, returns a video URL, and that gated eggs require an answer while open eggs do not. It also clarifies no purchase is involved. This goes beyond a basic 'discovers egg' statement, though it does not cover failure cases or repeated-discovery behavior.
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, each earning its place: what the tool does, how gating works, and the reward/return. It is front-loaded with the action and uses no 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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value (video URL), reward condition, gated/open behavior, and the non-commercial nature. It does not describe error handling or preconditions (e.g., must have an egg from get_world_eggs), but overall it provides enough context to use the tool 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 already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds context by linking the 'answer' parameter to gated eggs and referencing get_world_eggs for egg_slug, but this adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action verb 'Discover' and a concrete resource 'an easter egg from get_world_eggs', clarifying that it reveals the egg's film. It distinctly separates gated vs open eggs and notes 'Eggs are content, not listings: there is nothing to buy', clearly distinguishing this from purchase or listing tools.
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 states when to use it ('For a gated egg, pass your answer to the challenge; open eggs need none') and references get_world_eggs as the source of egg_slug, implying a workflow. It lacks an explicit 'use instead of' alternative but gives sufficient context for choosing this tool.
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.