create_referral_code

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals authentication requirement (ALGOCHAINS_SUBSCRIBER_KEY), return structure (code, share_url), and the referral earning incentive (20% for 3 months). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load action and cover purpose, return, uniqueness, earnings, and requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple, no-parameter tool, the description adequately explains core behavior and return values. Missing output schema is compensated by stating returns. Could mention error conditions (e.g., invalid key) but overall sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not waste space on parameters.

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 tool creates or fetches a referral code for the authenticated subscriber. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_referrals and get_referral_earnings by focusing on code creation/retrieval.

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 description explains what the tool does and notes the 'one active code per subscriber' constraint. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this versus alternatives like get_my_referrals, leaving inference to the agent.

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