[BROWSE] List active voucher offers (perks) from brands. Vouchers are bonus perks bundled with purchases. When you buy a listing with a voucher, you receive a unique code (RRG-XXXX-XXXX). Use redeem_voucher to redeem it. Optionally filter by brand_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand_slug | No | Optional brand slug to filter offers by a specific brand |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the voucher code format (RRG-XXXX-XXXX) and the redemption flow, which is useful domain context. However, it omits details about return format, pagination, or whether the list is sorted, so it's not fully transparent.
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, front-loaded with the primary function, then essential context, then the parameter. No redundant phrases or fluff. The [BROWSE] tag is 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description explains the domain and the follow-up action. It doesn't describe the return value structure, which might be needed for a complete mental model, but it's adequate for a developer to start using it. Given the 100% parameter coverage, context is sufficient.
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 covers brand_slug with a clear description, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description repeats the filter capability ('Optionally filter by brand_slug') but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. No format or example is provided.
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?
Description clearly states 'List active voucher offers (perks) from brands' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from redeem_voucher by explicitly directing users to that tool for redemption, and from other list tools like get_redemption_offers by focusing on voucher offers.
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?
Provides context that vouchers are bundled with purchases and that codes are redeemed via redeem_voucher, effectively steering users to the correct alternative action. It also mentions the optional brand_slug filter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for redeeming points or checking standing).
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.