[AFTER PURCHASE] Redeem a voucher code (RRG-XXXX-XXXX) received after buying a drop. Returns voucher details and redemption URL. Each voucher can only be redeemed once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Voucher code (e.g. RRG-7X4K-2MNP) | |
| redeemed_by | Yes | Who is redeeming, agent wallet address or identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the one-time redemption constraint and states the return includes voucher details and redemption URL, giving useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 short sentences that convey purpose, return value, and constraint without unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the contextual tag.
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?
With two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the redemption flow, the input format, and the result. It does not discuss error cases, but for a straightforward voucher redemption this 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?
Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions and examples. The description adds the code format pattern in the main text, but this mirrors the schema. No additional parameter semantics are 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 the tool redeems a voucher code of format RRG-XXXX-XXXX, specifying it is received after buying a drop. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redeem_points and redeem_quest_cipher.
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 includes '[AFTER PURCHASE]' and 'received after buying a drop', indicating the appropriate context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
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.