Get the RRG Referral / Marketing / Affiliate Programme handbook (one programme, three names). Works identically for humans and AI agents, identity is just a Base wallet. Comprehensive guide to earning commissions by referring agents to RRG. Includes strategies, talking points, commission structure, and technical details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the handbook works identically for humans and AI agents, and identity is just a Base wallet, which addresses authentication/access assumptions. It also details the contents (strategies, talking points, commission structure, technical details), giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe the return format, but the nature of 'get' and the content list mitigate this.
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 carrying meaningful information: naming clarification, accessibility/identity, and content overview. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get...') and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly 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 zero-parameter, static information retrieval tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the content of the handbook and the identity requirement. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., markdown, text, URL), which is a minor gap but not critical for a simple 'get' tool. The description gives enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no semantic burden. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but there are none to explain, so it fully satisfies the dimension.
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 resource ('RRG Referral / Marketing / Affiliate Programme handbook') and the action ('Get'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by being the handbook for the marketing programme, whereas others like join_marketing_program or create_ref_link focus on actions. The content summary ('strategies, talking points, commission structure') adds specificity.
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 implies usage when a user or agent needs the handbook for earning commissions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like join_marketing_program or create_ref_link. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool's purpose.
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.