Devuelve la ficha completa de una emisora: ciudad, dial, genero, cadena, sitio oficial, descripcion y su direccion de escucha. Usala cuando ya tengas el slug de una emisora y necesites sus datos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Identificador de la emisora, tal como lo devuelve buscar_emisoras. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers excellent context: it enumerates the result fields (ciudad, dial, genero, cadena, sitio oficial) and identifies the response includes both descriptive data and streaming URL. While it doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or errors, the 'ficha completa' plus the return list gives an agent confidence in what to expect.
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, information-dense sentences in Spanish. First sentence handles the purpose and returns; second handles the usage context. Zero fluff, perfectly sized for an agent to read quickly.
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 param, no nested schemas, no output schema) and the completeness of the description plus parameter documentation, it's essentially complete. Rating 4 instead of 5 because the description could have briefly noted error behavior (e.g., invalid slug) — but for a single-record fetch with well-documented parameters, this is nearly perfect.
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% — the 'slug' parameter already has an excellent description noting it's the identifier from 'buscar_emisoras'. The description text reinforces this by specifying the expected format ('tal como lo devuelve buscar_emisoras'). There are no additional parameter semantics needed. Slightly penalizing for not being at 5 since it could have mentioned whether the slug is case-sensitive, but the description is already doing schema's work.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('ficha completa de una emisora'), listing the exact data fields (ciudad, dial, genero, cadena, sitio oficial, descripcion, direccion de escucha) and when to use it (when you already have a slug). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: it complements buscar_emisoras (which finds slugs) and escuchar (which plays).
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 'Usala cuando ya tengas el slug de una emisora', directly telling the agent when to call this tool. It also references the sibling tool 'buscar_emisoras' as the source of the slug, establishing a clear workflow and implicitly ruling out usage when seeking stations.
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 addresses a distinct user intent: searching for stations, playing a station, and viewing full details. The only overlap is that ver_emisora also returns the listening URL, but the descriptions clearly separate the two use cases.
All tool names are lowercase and verb-led, but the pattern is inconsistent: buscar_emisoras and ver_emisora use verb_noun, while escuchar is a bare verb. Also, buscar_emisoras is plural while ver_emisora is singular, making the naming somewhat unpredictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a radio station directory and player server. Each tool serves a necessary, non-redundant core function: search, listen, and view details.
The primary workflow of search, inspect details, and listen is fully covered. Minor gaps exist such as no direct genre listing or popular stations endpoint, but agents can work around these with the search tool's flexible parameters.
