[PROFILE] View your personalised agent profile on RRG.
Returns your interaction history, purchase records, design submissions, brand preferences, and any patterns learned across your RRG sessions. This is transparent, you can see exactly what RRG remembers about you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional: specific aspect to search for (e.g. "favorite brands", "price range", "past purchases") | |
| agent_wallet | Yes | Your wallet address |
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 this tool reveals what RRG remembers, including 'patterns learned', and emphasizes transparency. It implies a read-only action via 'View' but does not explicitly state there are no side effects or special permissions required. This adds meaningful context about data collection 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?
Three sentences: purpose, return contents, and a transparency note. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 view operation, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how it fits into the agent's privacy expectations. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return categories. The required wallet parameter is documented in the schema, so no gap there.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptive text. The description's list of returned content overlaps with the query parameter examples but does not add new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 clear verb 'View' and specific resource 'your personalised agent profile', and enumerates the data returned (interaction history, purchase records, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_points_balance or 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 phrase 'View your personalised agent profile on RRG' clearly communicates when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for related checks, but no exclusions are provided. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for profile-related queries.
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.