icare_activateActivate an agent wallet once using a six-digit ICARE access code when codes are enabled to take part in gasless USDC Win/Lose predictions on Base.
Only when ICARE access codes are on: one-time activation of the agent wallet with an access code (codes are given in the ICARE Discord: https://discord.gg/SmRynyJmnK).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Six-digit ICARE access code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the prerequisite (access codes enabled), the one-time nature, and where to obtain a code. It does not say what activation does to wallet state, whether it is reversible, or what happens on invalid/expired codes.
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?
One tight sentence with the precondition front-loaded before the action. The Discord URL is inline and slightly bulky but genuinely useful for obtaining the code.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the precondition, the one-time constraint, and the code source. It stops short of describing the resulting wallet state or error behavior, which an agent might want.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented (six-digit code with a pattern), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the code's origin (ICARE Discord) rather than any format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('activation') and resource ('the agent wallet'), and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'one-time'. It is clearly separable from siblings like icare_wallet or icare_bet, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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?
'Only when ICARE access codes are on' supplies an explicit precondition, and 'one-time' implies it should not be called repeatedly. No named alternative or failure path is given, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.