get_v1_1_artist_discovered_onArtist discovered on Group: Artists. Billing per call: 1 Credits. Agents can pay per call ($0.01 via x402/MPP, no API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Artist ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions billing per call, which is trivial. There is no indication of what the tool returns, whether it's read-only, or any side effects.
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 very short, but it is also vague and lacks a clear verb phrase. It is not particularly well-structured, appearing as fragments separated by periods.
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?
Even for a simple one-parameter tool, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain the core function ('discovered on'?), what the response contains, or any usage 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Artist ID'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but per the rubric baseline is 3 when coverage is high.
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?
Description restates the tool name without explaining what 'discovered on' means. It provides only a category ('Group: Artists') and billing info, failing to distinguish it from siblings like artist_appears_on or artist_featuring.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.