[PLAY] Submit an answer to an active quest riddle. Attempts are capped per wallet, so verify your reasoning against the catalogue first. A correct answer earns VIA Points to your wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | Your answer (for product riddles, the tokenId) | |
| quest_slug | Yes | Quest slug from get_current_quest | |
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: attempt limits per wallet and the reward of VIA Points. This is valuable context, though it does not detail failure modes or what happens on incorrect submissions.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or repetition.
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 3-parameter submit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, the reward, and a critical constraint. It could mention how to check submission status, but the sibling tool implies that path.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states the tool's function: 'Submit an answer to an active quest riddle.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on submission and the VIA Points reward.
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?
It provides clear usage context by warning that attempts are capped per wallet and advising to verify reasoning against the catalogue first. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the guidance implies when to use this tool and when to hold off.
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.