Claim cashback AFTER a real, consumed transaction. Present the signed token from get_cashback_offer + optional proof. AYA verifies signature/expiry/anti-replay and records the claim (outcome-only manual validation, fraud-proof). principal_ref = opaque end-user reference, NEVER personal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof | No | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| principal_ref | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses verification steps (signature, expiry, anti-replay) and records the claim with outcome-only manual validation and fraud-proof. However, lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, or effects on user state.
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?
Three sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, processing, and a parameter note. No wasted words, but could be more structured for readability.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core purpose and constraints but omits details on return value and behavior of agent_id and proof. Adequate for simple use but not comprehensive.
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 0%; description only explains principal_ref as 'opaque end-user reference, NEVER personal data'. token is implied but format not given. agent_id and proof are not described.
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?
Clearly states it claims cashback after a consumed transaction, using a token from get_cashback_offer. The verb 'claim' and resource 'cashback' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling get_cashback_offer by mentioning the token comes from it.
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?
Specifies 'AFTER a real, consumed transaction' indicating appropriate timing. Mentions using the signed token from get_cashback_offer and optional proof. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling context.
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 clear and distinct purpose: cashback claiming, offer retrieval, company details, stats, indexing, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_cashback, get_cashback_offer, search_companies). No deviations.
Six tools is well-scoped for the registry and cashback domain, covering necessary operations without bloat or insufficiency.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered (search, get, add companies; cashback offer/claim). Minor gap: no update/delete for companies, but likely intentional for an open registry.
