referral-codes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes what is returned (referral code, offer details, signup URL) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, prerequisites, error handling, or rate limits.

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 action and outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It defines the input and outputs. However, it could mention what happens on invalid input or lack of referral code, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'exchange' adequately described as 'Exchange or product name, slug, or code.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and the specific resources: referral code, offer details, and signup URL. It distinguishes from siblings: listDiscounts (discounts) and searchExchanges (exchange names), making its purpose unique.

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 usage for a specific exchange or product but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. The context of siblings gives some guidance, but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals that results are 'highest-rated', 'verified', and 'currently featured', but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether operation is read-only. Some insight is given, but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point, containing no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and subject.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (discounts) and the filtering criteria (highest-rated, verified, featured). It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but overall it is adequate.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (limit and category) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond listing the resource attributes. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the semantics adequately.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'highest-rated verified discounts currently featured on the site'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools such as getReferralCode and searchExchanges, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tool is used for listing featured discounts but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'search', implying read-only behavior, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as result format, pagination, or error handling. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resources, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose. However, it does not explain what the result set looks like or how limit affects results, leaving some gaps for complete understanding.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that the query can be by 'name, promo code, or feature', which clarifies the semantic scope beyond the schema's generic 'exchange, wallet, tool, feature, or promo code'.

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 specifies the verb 'search' and lists the resource types (exchanges, wallets, analytics tools, crypto cards) and search criteria (name, promo code, feature). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getReferralCode and listDiscounts.

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 usage (when you need to search for crypto-related items) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making it adequate but lacking decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.