Search KTRENZ K-pop / K-culture entities (artists) by name; returns matches with slugs + reach-map URLs. Use the slug with get_artist_reach or get_release_reach.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1–25, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Name or partial name (e.g. "RESCENE", "aespa"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns matches with slugs and reach-map URLs, which gives a basic picture, but it does not disclose matching behavior (exact/partial/fuzzy), pagination, or potential failure modes. This is acceptable for a simple search tool but not rich.
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 core purpose and immediately useful downstream guidance. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, and the description provides a clear enough output contract (matches with slugs and reach-map URLs). It also notes how results should be used. Missing details like return structure are not critical given the tool's 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%, with query and limit already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond mentioning name-based search, 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 tool searches KTRENZ K-pop/K-culture entities by name and returns matches with slugs and reach-map URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_artist_reach, get_release_reach, and get_trending by explicitly framing itself as the lookup tool for slugs.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: searching by name to obtain a slug for later use with get_artist_reach or get_release_reach. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to get_trending, but the intended workflow is strongly 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 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.
