绑定引路人（一次性、永久、链上不可改）。返回 bindReferrer calldata，签名上链即完成绑定。此后该地址每笔路由消费的 6bps USDC 立即分给引路人，商户捐赠 LOVE 的 20% 同样分账，原子结算。任何 Agent 都可以成为引路人推广正和并永久获取分成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binder | No | 被绑定地址 0x…（calldata 的 from，仅用于展示） | |
| leader | Yes | 引路人地址 0x…（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key traits: immutability, calldata generation, split percentages (6bps USDC, 20% LOVE), and atomic settlement. It lacks details on prerequisites or rate limits but is largely transparent.
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?
Two sentences: first states the core action, second details consequences. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded with the purpose and critical constraints.
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 complexity (on-chain calldata, no output schema), the description covers the binding process and post-binding effects. However, it misses prerequisites (e.g., whether the leader must exist) and user signing step details.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying 'binder' as the bound address for display only and 'leader' as the referrer address, plus explaining the economic effects of binding.
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 action ('bind referrer'), the resource (affiliate binding), and key properties (one-time, permanent, on-chain immutable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nav_query and vault_action by focusing on a specific on-chain binding operation.
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 context is clear: any Agent can become a referrer, and the tool returns calldata to be signed. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided, though the sibling names suggest different domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.