[PLAY] Your VIA Points balance, the cross-brand network loyalty balance. Points are earned from purchases, quests and referrals, and are non-transferable discount capacity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_wallet | Yes | Agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Your VIA Points balance' and explains points domain properties, but fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any error handling behavior. The name 'get' implies read-only, but the description adds no transparency beyond that.
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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain context about VIA Points that helps an agent understand the resource, though it could be considered non-essential. It is not verbose and every sentence provides some 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what points are but does not mention the return type (e.g., numeric balance) or behavior for invalid wallets. Since this is a straightforward getter, the gaps are not critical, but additional specifics would improve completeness.
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 fully describes the only parameter agent_wallet with 'Agent wallet address on Base' and a regex pattern, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying 'your' wallet, which is a marginal addition. The 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 identifies the resource (VIA Points balance) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_agent_standing or get_agent_pass by using the specific term 'VIA Points balance' and 'cross-brand network loyalty balance'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', making it slightly less direct than ideal.
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 provides contextual information about points (how they are earned, non-transferability) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redeem_points or get_redemption_offers. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.
32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.