[PLAY] Submit an answer to an active quest riddle. Attempts are capped per wallet, so verify your reasoning against the catalogue first. A correct answer earns VIA Points to your wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | Your answer (for product riddles, the tokenId) | |
| quest_slug | Yes | Quest slug from get_current_quest | |
| 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 transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: attempts are capped per wallet (a limitation) and correct answers earn VIA Points (a consequence). This goes beyond simple mutation disclosure, though it does not specify what happens on wrong answers or how the response indicates success/failure.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds distinct value: action, constraint, and reward. No wasted words or 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is adequate but lacks detail on return values, error cases, or whether wrong answers consume attempts. It does mention the attempt cap and reward, which provides some context, but the absence of outcome details leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer from sibling tools like get_submission_status.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema already explains quest_slug origin, answer format (including tokenId for product riddles), and wallet pattern. No additional semantic value is added by the description.
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 tool's purpose: submitting an answer to an active quest riddle. It uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (answer to quest riddle), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_quest (retrieval) and redeem_quest_cipher (redemption) by focusing on the submission act.
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 provides clear usage context: it is for active quests, and it warns that attempts are capped per wallet, advising verification of reasoning first. It implies the need to fetch the quest slug via get_current_quest but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives.
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.