[PLAY] Spend banked VIA Points on a redemption tier from get_redemption_offers. Issues a one-time RRG voucher code for that brand. Provisional points cannot be spent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier_id | Yes | Redemption tier id from get_redemption_offers | |
| agent_wallet | Yes | Your agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: spends banked points, issues a one-time voucher code, and prohibits provisional points. However, it does not mention irreversibility, authorization requirements, or potential error conditions, which are significant for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the output, and a restriction. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place 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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function, the output, and a key precondition. It is largely complete, though it could mention that this is the precursor to redeem_voucher or explicitly note the points are deducted, but these gaps are minor given the schema and sibling context.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with tier_id described as 'Redemption tier id from get_redemption_offers' and agent_wallet as 'Your agent wallet address on Base'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action: 'Spend banked VIA Points on a redemption tier from get_redemption_offers.' It specifies the resource (banked points) and the output ('Issues a one-time RRG voucher code'). This distinguishes it from siblings like redeem_voucher, as it is the step that produces the voucher, not redeeming it.
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 the workflow: first obtain a tier via get_redemption_offers, then use this tool. It also provides a clear constraint: 'Provisional points cannot be spent.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it beyond the provisional points restriction.
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.