Searches for and retrieves high-quality stock sound effects (SFX) based on the provided search query. Returns an array of sound effect objects including the title, duration, audio download link, BPM, moods, and genres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query string (e.g. 'explosion', 'whoosh', 'footsteps'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (an array of sound effect objects) and enumerates the fields (title, duration, download link, BPM, moods, genres), which is valuable. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or use constraints, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate transparency.
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, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return format and fields, which is complete enough for basic usage. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'get_music,' but the name and core function make that distinction implicit. The description covers the essential context an agent needs.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single 'query' parameter thoroughly described including examples. The tool description already says 'based on the provided search query,' but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline score.
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 tool's function: searching for and retrieving stock sound effects (SFX). It uses a specific verb ('searches for and retrieves') and identifies the resource ('high-quality stock sound effects'), and the name 'get_sfx' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_music'.
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 usage is for sound effect searches, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the sibling 'get_music' or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on alternatives, so the context is clear but not fully specified.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get_music for music tracks, get_sfx for sound effects, and usage_statistic for API quota monitoring. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
Two tools follow the verb_noun pattern (get_music, get_sfx), while usage_statistic lacks a verb and uses a noun phrase. This is a minor deviation but the names remain readable and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of searching music and SFX and checking usage. Each tool serves a distinct need, so the count is appropriate but on the lean side.
The core search and retrieval workflow for music and SFX is covered, and the usage tool supports monitoring. Minor gaps exist such as no browse-by-category or direct track-by-ID retrieval, but these are not critical for the basic use case.