Reserves a quest slot and locks the payout token, giving the agent 24 hours to submit proof.
Reserves a slot in a quest and fixes the payout token. The agent then has 24 hours to submit proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| questId | Yes | ||
| payoutToken | Yes | USDG or a stock symbol such as NVDA |
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 full burden. It usefully discloses two real behavioral traits — the payout token becomes fixed and a 24-hour deadline is imposed — but says nothing about cost, reversibility, permissions, or whether slots are limited, which matters for a reservation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the consequence. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key commitment (24h deadline, locked payout) but omits what is returned, whether the reservation can be released, and any cost or auth requirement, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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 50%: payoutToken is documented with an example, questId is not but is self-evident. The phrase 'fixes the payout token' adds a semantic nuance (that the token is locked in) beyond the schema's format note, but syntax and constraints are left to 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 and resource (reserve a quest slot) plus the secondary effect of fixing the payout token. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_quests or submit_quest_proof, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 24-hour proof window implies this is the step preceding submit_quest_proof, so the workflow position is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.