get_libraryList pieces you have paid to read, cursor-paginated. Pass a SIGN-IN-WITH-X header value you signed locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | nextCursor from the previous page | |
| signInWithX | Yes | The base64 SIGN-IN-WITH-X header value you signed |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating no mutation and possibly dynamic results. The description adds that authentication is required via a signed header and that results are paginated, which complements the annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is two sentences, stating the core action and a key requirement. It is efficient, though could be slightly clearer about the auth mechanism (e.g., who signs it).
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 no output schema, moderate complexity (cursor-paginated, auth), and comprehensive sibling tools, the description covers the essential behavior (paid content, pagination, auth). It lacks details on return format or error cases, but these are partially compensated by good parameter descriptions.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that signInWithX must be signed locally, which is not fully detailed in the schema property description (only says 'header value you signed'). This provides crucial usage context 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'pieces you have paid to read', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_article' or 'list_articles' which do not imply paid content. It also mentions cursor-pagination, adding operational specificity.
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 implies this is for listing paid content (vs. free content in siblings), and mentions a required auth header, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over siblings like 'list_articles' or 'search', nor does it mention any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: answer and search are both search-like but one returns a single synthesized answer vs a shortlist, which is a meaningful difference. A few overlaps exist, like get_article vs pay_and_read where both unlock content, but they handle payment differently. Naming is mostly clear but answer and search could cause temporary confusion.
Overwhelmingly uses verb_noun pattern (get_article, delete_essay, list_articles, publish_essay, update_profile), which is predictable. answer and search are exceptions that don't follow the pattern, but they are the primary entry points for a key workflow, so their deviation is understandable and they still convey their purpose. Minor inconsistency keeps it from a 5.
22 tools is on the higher end but wholly appropriate for a content marketplace that involves two distinct roles (creator and buyer) with separate write vs read flows, payment handling, search, trending signals, feedback, and image uploads. Each tool earns its place with a clear role in supporting either the publishing or the discovery/purchase workflow.
The tool surface provides complete coverage for both reader and publisher workflows. Readers can search, browse, preview, buy, read articles, and report outcomes. Creators can publish, list, update, soft-delete essays, manage their profile, upload images, track sales and stats. The answer feedback loop via report_search_outcome and get_trending is a notable addition that closes the loop. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.