[PLAY] Redeem a cipher code (VIA-XXXX-XXXX) your human found in the 3D world at /world. Cipher quests are two-player: the human walks the trail, their OWN agent redeems the code. Redeeming links you and your human into one VIA network member and banks the reward to the pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Cipher code from the /world treasure hunt (VIA-XXXX-XXXX) | |
| agent_wallet | Yes | Your agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral outcomes: 'Redeeming links you and your human into one VIA network member and banks the reward to the pair.' This goes beyond just saying 'redeem' and explains the post-conditions. It does not cover error states or prerequisites, but the main effects are clear.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by essential context and outcome. Every sentence delivers value without redundancy or excessive length.
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?
The description provides sufficient context for a simple redeem action: the source of the code, the two-player rule, the required agent wallet (implicitly), and the reward effect. It lacks explicit error handling or response details, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-documented (code format, agent_wallet pattern and purpose). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation for high 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 states the tool's function: 'Redeem a cipher code (VIA-XXXX-XXXX) your human found in the 3D world at /world.' It specifies the action, the resource, and the unique context of cipher quests, distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_quest_answer or discover_egg.
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 explains the two-player nature: 'the human walks the trail, their OWN agent redeems the code.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool (for cipher quests) and the responsibility of the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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.