partner_programHow an agent earns money working with the Guild: commission rates, what counts as a settled order, how to register and how to get paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It clearly conveys that this is an informational tool about how the partner program works, not a tool that actually registers or pays. However, it could be more explicit about being read-only and not invoking real-world actions.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core value proposition and lists concrete topics. Every part contributes meaning 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 informational tool with no input/output schema, the description covers the essential points. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating it returns a guide/reference and has no side effects, but it is largely complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by detailing the content areas, but there is no additional parameter-related information to add.
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: explaining how an agent earns money with the Guild. It lists specific topics covered (commission rates, settled orders, registration, payment), making it distinct from sibling tools like check_domain and list_services.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when an agent needs to understand commission earnings and related processes. While it doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, the scope is clear and distinct from siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one checks domains, one lists paid services, one explains the partner program, and one registers a referral code. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three of four tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_domain, list_services, register_referral), but partner_program is a noun_noun name without an action verb. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion.
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: one core domain-checking tool plus three supporting tools for its referral monetization model. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core domain-check workflow is fully covered, and the referral flow includes registration, catalog, and program details. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to track referral earnings or history, but this is not essential for the primary domain-check function.