[BROWSE] Get full details for a specific listing by tokenId. Call this after list_drops to see what you are buying. Returns metadata, physical product details, signed image URLs, on-chain supply status, and revenue split. Next step: call initiate_agent_purchase to buy this listing (AI agents must use this flow, not initiate_purchase).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenId | Yes | Token ID of the listing |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It labels the operation as [BROWSE], indicating a read-only look-up, and lists exactly what is returned (metadata, product details, signed image URLs, supply status, revenue split), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and the next step. No filler or repetition of schema fields.
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 single-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient return-value categories and usage flow. It could be more complete by noting error handling or response format, but given the low complexity and lack of output schema, it is nearly 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?
The input schema already documents tokenId as 'Token ID of the listing' at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds that the ID comes from list_drops, but does not add type, constraints, or formatting details beyond the schema.
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 opens with 'Get full details for a specific listing by tokenId,' a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from list_drops (listing overview) and initiate_agent_purchase/initiate_purchase (buying) by explicitly describing the pre- and post-steps.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this after list_drops to see what you are buying' and the next step is initiate_agent_purchase. It even disambiguates the correct purchase flow for AI agents, so the agent knows when to use this tool versus the alternatives.
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.