A specific release's (comeback / MV / tour / chart announcement) measured AI-citation reach across answer engines. Measured first-party by KTRENZ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Release slug (from an artist's releases), e.g. a comeback slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the measurement is first-party by KTRENZ and spans answer engines, but it does not clarify what 'reach' means, whether the result is a single number or a breakdown, or any access/rate considerations.
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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the measurement source, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
With one simple parameter and no nested objects, the tool is not complex, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the return format or how the reach metric is presented. The description is adequate for basic understanding but leaves some ambiguity about what the caller actually gets.
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 input schema already fully describes the single slug parameter with an example, so the description does not need to add much. The tool description does reinforce that slug refers to release types like comebacks, which aligns with and slightly expands the schema description.
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 defines the tool as measuring AI-citation reach for a specific release, listing concrete release types (comeback, MV, tour, chart announcement). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_artist_reach, which targets artist-level reach, and get_trending/search_kdata.
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 makes clear that the tool is for release-specific reach metrics, implying it should be used when you need data for a particular comeback/MV/tour/chart event rather than artist-level or trending data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the release-scoped wording provides enough contextual guidance.
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 clear, distinct purpose: artist-level reach vs. release-level reach vs. trending velocity vs. entity discovery. The only potential confusion is between get_artist_reach and get_release_reach, but the descriptions clearly separate 'artist's measured reach' from 'a specific release's reach.' An agent could occasionally hesitate between the two reach tools, but the boundaries are well-drawn.
get_artist_reach and get_release_reach establish a clean get_<resource>_reach pattern in snake_case, and get_trending mostly follows the get_ prefix. However, search_kdata introduces a different verb, and get_trending uses a gerund rather than a noun object, so the pattern drifts slightly in the second half of the set.
Four tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused data-access server. Every tool earns its place: search for discovery, artist reach, release reach, and trending. The scale feels right for a niche K-pop reach-data API — extensible without being bloated.
The domain is well-covered: search resolves entities, then you can fetch artist reach, release reach, or the trending list — a complete read workflow. Minor gap: there's no way to enumerate all releases for an artist independent of what get_artist_reach embeds, but for an analytics read API the surface feels whole.
