axis_exportExport an avatar to a target engine platform with validation and HMAC-signed manifest. [Paid: $0.50 USDC via x402 for unauthenticated calls on the hosted /mcp endpoint; settled only on a successful (non-error) result.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes | Target platform | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to mesh file |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the payment requirement for unauthenticated calls ($0.50 USDC via x402) and the settlement condition (only on successful results), as well as the HMAC-signed manifest output. This exceeds the baseline and provides genuinely useful operational details.
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 extremely concise: a single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief pricing note. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler, achieving high efficiency and clarity.
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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, validation, manifest signing, and payment behavior. The only minor gap is not describing the exact return format, but that is not critical for a tool of this simplicity.
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% because both parameters have descriptions ('Target platform' and 'Path to mesh file'). The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning; it only restates the concept of a target engine platform. Thus, 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 specifies a clear action ('Export an avatar to a target engine platform') with a distinct resource (avatar) and destination (engine platform). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like axis_validate and axis_manifest_verify by mentioning validation and HMAC-signed manifest, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 context is clear: this tool is for exporting avatars to engine platforms. It implies when to use it (when an export is needed) and distinguishes from validation or inspection tools through the action verb. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 occupies a clearly distinct role: generation (image/text) plus status polling, pipeline processing (file vs inline), validation, repair, export, compliance, manifest verification, inspection, comparison, capabilities, and animation retargeting are all separated. The only potential overlap between axis_process and post_process_mesh is explicitly resolved by input method and scope.
Two naming styles coexist: axis_* prefix for core pipeline/contract tools and descriptive non-prefixed names for generation, repair, and compliance tools. Within axis_*, the verb/noun order is inconsistent (e.g., axis_manifest_verify vs axis_list_capabilities), making the set readable but not uniform.
14 tools is squarely within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the broad but well-defined scope of a full avatar foundry: generation, processing, validation, repair, export, compliance, and metadata inspection. Every tool serves a necessary function with no redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle from generation (image/text) and status polling through post-processing, repair, validation, export, and Roblox-specific compliance. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to list available animation clips (retarget_animation references 'built-in' clips) or manage a library of previously generated avatars, but core workflows are fully supported.