[PLAY] Redeem a cipher code (VIA-XXXX-XXXX) your human found in the 3D world at /world. Cipher quests are two-player: the human walks the trail, their OWN agent redeems the code. Redeeming links you and your human into one VIA network member and banks the reward to the pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Cipher code from the /world treasure hunt (VIA-XXXX-XXXX) | |
| 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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the linking of human and agent into one VIA network member and banking the reward to the pair, which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or potential failure modes, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation-like action.
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 earning its place: it states the action, provides the quest context, and explains the outcome. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, when to use, and the resulting effect. It could be more explicit about prerequisites or post-redemption behavior, but the existing context is solid.
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 ('code' and 'agent_wallet') are fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond reinforcing the code format and wallet network, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb ('redeem') and resource ('cipher code') with the exact format (VIA-XXXX-XXXX), and distinguishes this from siblings like redeem_points and redeem_voucher by explicitly mentioning the two-player quest context and the linking of human and agent.
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 clearly states when to use this tool: when the human has found a cipher code in the 3D world at /world, and emphasizes that the agent must be the human's own agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from other redemption tools.
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.