get_or_create_referral

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that a signing step is required, that the returned management token is one-time, which wallets it protects, and that 'no funds move.' This meaningfully clarifies the destructiveHint=false safety profile for a mutation tool. The 'one-time token' wording sits slightly uneasily against idempotentHint=true but does not outright contradict it.

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?

Four tight sentences that front-load the two-phase flow and the safety note. A little marketing gloss ('secure shared affiliate enrollment') but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, and the signing flow is covered. However, for a 10-parameter, 0%-coverage, two-step auth tool, the description leaves the majority of parameters and the management_token round-trip ambiguous.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only names challenge_id and signature (and implies the chain-specific wallet params), leaving agent_id, wallet_address, connected_wallet, management_token, and primary_chain completely unexplained in both description and 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 two-phase action (begin/finish affiliate enrollment) that an agent can distinguish from the sibling jackpot/ticket tools. The 'referral' name vs 'affiliate enrollment' wording is slightly inconsistent, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step invocation: first call returns a signable message, then resubmit challenge_id plus signature. No alternatives or when-not guidance, but the operational flow is clearly laid out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.