get_profileRead your own publisher profile. Pass a SIGN-IN-WITH-X header value you signed locally. This server never holds your keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to say it's read-only. However, the description adds meaningful context about the authentication mechanism (self-signed headers, server doesn't hold keys) that goes beyond annotations. It does not mention response structure, pagination, or whether the profile data is cached. With good annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical authentication guidance. Every part is essential and well-organized.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, no enums), the description covers the essential functional behavior. It doesn't describe the return value format, but with no output schema present, a brief note on what fields are returned would be helpful. However, for a read-only profile tool with clear input requirements, the current description is minimally complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description adds the context that the value should be 'the base64 SIGN-IN-WITH-X header value you signed', which matches the schema description. There's marginal extra value in clarifying that the signature is locally performed, but overall the schema carries the load. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource clearly ('your own publisher profile'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_creator' (which reads another user's profile) and 'update_profile' (which modifies). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to read your own profile. It provides a critical prerequisite: 'Pass a SIGN-IN-WITH-X header value you signed locally.' It also explains why you need to do this ('This server never holds your keys'), which justifies the authentication mechanism and helps the agent understand the tool's security model. This is excellent guidance.
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.