Inspect a Blender .blend without spending. Creates upload_id and an open locked quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to a local .blend file. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that no money is spent, that an upload_id is created, and that a quote is opened and locked. This reveals cost behavior and side effects beyond what the tool name alone implies.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds information. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or redundant schema content.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose and the key side effect, though the notion of an 'open locked quote' is jargon that could use a bit more context.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, file_path, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'a Blender .blend', and adds concrete side effects: creating an upload_id and an open locked quote. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like farpy_start or farpy_quote, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'without spending' implies this tool is the free inspection step before a paid operation, and creating a quote suggests it precedes farpy_quote or farpy_start. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling or names alternative tools, so usage guidance is only implied.
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 phase of the rendering workflow: capabilities, upload, inspect, submit, status, download, receipt, and wallet. There is no overlap in purpose, making misselection unlikely.
All tools share the farpy_ prefix and snake_case, but some use verb_noun (inspect_blend, submit_render) while others are noun-only (capabilities, receipt, wallet). This is a minor inconsistency but the pattern is still readable.
Eight tools is well within the optimal range for a focused cloud rendering service, covering the full lifecycle without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The toolkit covers the entire render pipeline from upload to payment receipt, with no obvious dead ends. A cancel operation is the only notable gap, but it is not integral to the core workflow.
