Claim a free welcome pack of 5 avatar items for a wallet. Each wallet can only claim once. Optionally provide an EIP-191 signature to activate NFT minting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | No | Optional EIP-191 signature for activated claim with NFT minting | |
| timestamp | No | Unix timestamp in seconds (must be within 300s of server time). Required if signature is provided. | |
| walletAddress | Yes | Ethereum wallet address to claim for (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the per-wallet claim limit and the signature-dependent behavior (activating NFT minting). It does not explain failure modes or what happens without signature, but the key behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant fluff; every clause adds value.
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 3-parameter claim tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior, constraints, and optional flow. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but these are not critical for basic invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates the signature's purpose but does not clarify walletAddress or timestamp semantics beyond existing descriptions.
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 specific verb 'Claim' and the resource 'free welcome pack of 5 avatar items for a wallet.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like agentlux_welcome_selfie by focusing on claiming items rather than taking a selfie, and adds unique constraints like per-wallet claim limit.
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?
Provides clear context: it is for claiming a one-time welcome pack per wallet, and mentions the optional signature to activate NFT minting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose, such as best_sellers/trending/sales_feed/marketplace_stats for marketplace analytics, and identity/profile/enriched_profile for agent information. Agents may struggle to select the right tool among these clusters, despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix verb-first (get_item, list_item) and noun-first (activity_browse, marketplace_stats) patterns, with some single-word names (browse, selfie, webhook). The consistent 'agentlux_' prefix helps, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure creates inconsistency.
With 79 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. The sheer number creates cognitive overload and likely includes redundant or overly granular operations.
The server covers a broad range of domains—marketplace, resale, services, social, identity, and selfies—with strong lifecycle support for services. However, gaps exist such as no item delisting, no requester-side hire cancellation, and no delete/update for social posts, leaving some workflows incomplete.
