Remove a coupon from this patron's redemption list.
Cosmetic only — the coupon itself still exists at the operator,
and the patron can re-redeem the same code later while the
window allows. Free — requires proof of npub.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | Yes | ||
| coupon_id | Yes | ||
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's cosmetic (non-destructive), the coupon still exists, re-redeem is possible, and it requires proof of npub. This provides clear expectations for the agent.
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, all essential: purpose, key distinguishing feature, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with verb. No 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 removal tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and requirements. Return values are left to the output schema, which is acceptable.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions npub as required proof, but does not describe coupon_id or dpop_token. The coupon_id is implied but not explicitly explained.
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 removes a coupon from a patron's redemption list (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from the sibling delete_coupon by noting it's 'cosmetic only', indicating it's not permanent deletion.
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 indicates the cosmetic nature and that the coupon can be re-redeemed, implying when to use this over permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling delete_coupon as the alternative for permanent removal.
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.
There is substantial overlap and confusion between multiple sets of tools. For example, `optionality_get_operator_onboarding_status` and `optionality_get_patron_onboarding_status` serve different identities but have a similar purpose that could be confusing. More critically, there are generic-named tools like `optionality_receive_credentials` and `optionality_receive_npub_proof` that both drain a relay mailbox in a very similar way, distinguished primarily by the type of token they return. The presence of both `optionality_session_status` and `optionality_service_status` is a major point of ambiguity, as both seem to check the health and configuration of the operator.
The naming convention is highly consistent, using a snake_case, verb_noun pattern (e.g., `list_journal`, `delete_journal`). The prefix `optionality_` is applied to all tools. The verb 'get' and 'list' are used predictably. Minor point deduction for a few outliers like `optionality_deal_scenario` and `optionality_judge_trade` which are domain-specific verbs that don't perfectly fit the CRUD pattern but are still clear in context.
With 71 tools, this server is severely over-staffed. This indicates poor separation of concerns, likely bundling multiple distinct domains or services into a single surface. A tool count this high dramatically increases cognitive load and API surface area, making it difficult for an agent to find the correct tool.
The tool surface covers an enormous amount of functionality, including imaginative ownership-proof flows via Nostr DMs. However, the `check_balance`/`purchase_credits` flow appears incomplete without a `refund_credits` tool for operator support scenarios. While the server has a `restore_credits` tool, it requires authentication. Overall, the surface is individually creative but organizationally incoherent.