[PLAY] Hidden easter eggs placed in the 3D world at /world. Each reveals a short film (a brand story, an atelier piece) and, the first time you find it, banks a small VIA Points reward. These are content, never products, never for sale. Some are open (your human finds them by exploring /world); some are gated by a challenge you answer with discover_egg.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_wallet | Yes | Your agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description says eggs 'bank a small VIA Points reward' but does not clarify whether calling this tool triggers any side effects, or whether it is purely read-only. It also fails to explain the purpose of the required agent_wallet parameter, leaving the agent uncertain about potential effects or prerequisites.
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 four sentences and packs in multiple useful context points: location, content type, reward mechanism, and gating. It is front-loaded with the resource and location. A minor redundancy exists ('never products' could be inferred), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and why the wallet is needed. It fails to do so—there is no mention of the return format, whether it lists egg locations, or how the wallet factors in. The relationship with discover_egg is only implied. For a simple get tool, this is a significant 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?
The schema already provides complete coverage for the only parameter (agent_wallet) with a clear description and pattern. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the wallet is used, so it does not improve upon the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 (hidden easter eggs in /world) and distinguishes them from related tools like discover_egg by explaining the open vs. gated distinction. However, it does not explicitly state the operation (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'lists'), relying on the tool name 'get_world_eggs' to convey the verb. Overall, a clear purpose but with slight ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.
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 by noting that some eggs are gated and 'you answer with discover_egg,' suggesting when to use the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to call get_world_eggs itself (e.g., 'use this to view all eggs') or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.