[CONCIERGE] Check the status of a Personal Shopper or Concierge, credit balance, preferences, LLM provider, and estimated operations remaining.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Agent ID. If omitted, looks up by wallet_address. | |
| wallet_address | No | Wallet address to look up. Used if agent_id is not provided. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Check' implies a read-only operation, which is a mild behavioral signal, but the description does not explicitly state absence of side effects, permissions, or error behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially discloses behavior by listing the returned status attributes.
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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the [CONCIERGE] tag and immediately states the action and the key data points returned, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description conveys the main purpose and return contents, but lacks usage context, such as when to choose this over sibling tools or how the optional parameters interact beyond what the schema already says. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing return fields, but it is not fully complete.
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 100%, and the schema already explains that agent_id and wallet_address are alternatives and one may be omitted. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so it earns the baseline score for full schema coverage.
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 the status of a Personal Shopper or Concierge and lists specific status aspects (credit balance, preferences, LLM provider, operations remaining). The verb 'Check' is specific and the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the focus on concierge status distinguishes it from similar tools like check_agent_standing.
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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without context on the appropriate scenario.
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.