Cupom pessoal de desconto ainda disponivel do hospede (ex.: o cupom de boas-vindas do primeiro cadastro), se houver. Retorna {cupom: null} se nao houver nenhum ativo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the return value (null if no active coupon) and indicates the coupon is 'still available,' which suggests possible expiration. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens if the token is invalid, which are relevant for a tool requiring a token.
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 key purpose, and includes a concrete return value example. Every word is useful, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the return value and the condition for null. However, the token parameter is not addressed, and there is no mention of how to obtain or use the token, which is a significant gap for a tool that requires authentication. The description covers the basic purpose but misses a critical operational detail.
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 has one required parameter 'token' with no description, and the description does not mention the token at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining the token's meaning or usage, but it fails to do so, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.
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 indicates the tool retrieves a personal discount coupon from the host (e.g., a welcome coupon). The tool name 'get_welcome_coupon' aligns with this, and the description adds specificity by explaining the coupon type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_voucher' somewhat by focusing on the welcome coupon, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 usage context is implied: it is for retrieving a personal discount coupon if one exists. The description states it returns null if none is active, implying a check for an available coupon. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_voucher, nor any stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.