[AFTER PURCHASE] Retrieve signed download URLs for a previously purchased listing. Use if you lost the original download link from confirm_purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenId | Yes | Token ID of the purchased listing | |
| buyerWallet | Yes | Buyer wallet used at purchase |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool works 'AFTER PURCHASE' and returns 'signed download URLs,' implying read-only access. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention potential failure conditions (e.g., invalid buyerWallet/tokenId) or the expiry nature of signed URLs. The core behavior is clear but lacks explicit safety/edge-case details.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences totaling 20 words. It front-loads the critical context with '[AFTER PURCHASE]' and every phrase ('previously purchased,' 'lost the original download link') adds meaningful guidance without redundancy.
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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the purpose and when to use it, and the schema fully documents parameters. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but for a download-link retrieval tool, the description is adequately 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% for both parameters (buyerWallet and tokenId), with descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Retrieve signed download URLs for a previously purchased listing.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('signed download URLs'), and the context 'previously purchased' distinguishes it from purchase-related tools like confirm_purchase or initiate_purchase.
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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use if you lost the original download link from confirm_purchase.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and even names the alternative source of the same information (confirm_purchase).
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.