Machine-readable summary of the Artyfile licence tiers: Basic (€29.90 one-time, worldwide perpetual sync licence) and Limited Edition (€69.90 per 1% numbered master share incl. revenue participation). Includes the Cover-Edition (master_only) restrictions and links to the binding Terms & Conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains that the output is machine-readable and enumerates the included elements (tiers, pricing, restrictions, links). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get terms' statement, though it does not specify return format or whether any side effects occur.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Machine-readable summary of the Artyfile licence tiers'), then adds concrete details. Every word contributes value; 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 information tool, the description is fully complete. It states what is returned, specific content (tiers, pricing, restrictions, links), and the machine-readable nature. No additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and none are missing.
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 identifies the tool as providing a machine-readable summary of license tiers, with specific details like pricing and restrictions. It is distinct from sibling tools which handle checkout, downloads, order status, and search.
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 that this tool is used for retrieving license terms, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The intended use is inferred from the name and content, but no direct guidance is given.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search, track details, license terms, checkout creation, order status polling, and download retrieval. There is no overlap; even the order-related tools serve different phases of the workflow.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_checkout, get_download_link, get_license_terms, get_order_status, get_track, search_tracks). The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a music licensing workflow. Each tool covers an essential step from discovery to fulfillment, without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tools cover the full purchase lifecycle: searching and inspecting tracks, understanding license terms, creating a checkout, polling payment status, and retrieving downloads and documents. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing a licensing transaction.
