OnChain Music

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description usefully adds the validation rule that percentages must total 100, but with no output schema it never describes what the split returns, which matters for a calculation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing: the action, the validation rule, and the scope boundary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter computation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, input constraint, and scope. The one gap is the absence of an output schema plus no description of the returned split format, which an agent might want to know.

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%: both parameters, including the nested writer name/percentage fields, are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the sum-to-100 rule already present in the writers schema description, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('gross songwriter royalties among co-writers by their percentage shares'), which is clear and concrete. It implicitly differs from siblings like calculate_songwriter_publisher_split and calculate_sync_fee_split through the resource named, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling.

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 gives a scope statement ('Works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog') and an input constraint, which implies when the tool applies, but it never says when to choose this over calculate_songwriter_publisher_split or calculate_producer_points. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds real value by naming the three values the tool computes — master royalty, producer's share, artist's net — which is the return content, and there is no output schema to carry that. It does not mention error behavior for out-of-range inputs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output list, then a short scoping clause. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the three returned figures, and the parameter defaults/ranges live in the schema. A pure arithmetic tool with full annotation coverage needs little more, though a note on input validity or rounding/currency assumptions would close the remaining gap.

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 each of the four parameters documented, including defaults for master_royalty_rate (18) and suggested_retail_price (9.99). The description mentions 'per-unit and total earnings,' which loosely maps to the units_sold conditional-total behavior, but adds no new syntax or meaning. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (calculate) and resource (producer points deal) and enumerates the three computed outputs: master royalty, producer's share, artist's net. It also distinguishes itself from the catalog-bound siblings by stating it works for any music, so an agent can separate it from get_track/search_catalog-driven flows without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'producer points deal' and 'works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog' imply the usage context, but the description never states when to pick this over calculate_cowriter_split or calculate_songwriter_publisher_split, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the domain term rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is light. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the tool also returns a deal-type classification and that its scope extends beyond the OnChain catalog. It stops short of explaining rounding, currency handling, or edge cases.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. The trailing scope sentence earns its place by preempting a catalog-applicability question, though it reads as slightly appended rather than integrated.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return (a split plus a deal-type label). For a two-parameter, read-only calculation tool this is close to complete, though it does not explain how the three deal types affect the split numerically.

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%, so both gross_royalties and publisher_percentage (including the default of 50 for co-publishing) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (split) and resource (gross songwriter royalties), plus a secondary output (deal type: self-published, co-publishing, full publishing). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculators calculate_cowriter_split and calculate_sync_fee_split, which handle different royalty parties.

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 line 'Works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog' gives useful scope guidance about applicability, but it never states when to choose this tool over calculate_cowriter_split or calculate_producer_points, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope caveat about working outside the OnChain catalog and discloses the internal allocation order, but omits rounding/precision behavior and how defaults interact with the split.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the scope note. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only calculator with no output schema, the description explains the entire computation chain well enough for an agent to predict the result. Minor gaps around units already in schema and rounding are negligible.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description's mention of the publishing-side split loosely maps to publisher_sync_percentage but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (split) and resource (sync licensing fee) and lays out the two-stage allocation logic, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related sibling calculate_songwriter_publisher_split, which performs one of the sub-steps described here.

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 note that it 'works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog' implicitly signals scope, and the sync-fee framing implies when it applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against siblings like calculate_songwriter_publisher_split or calculate_cowriter_split.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: estimates derive from publicly reported averages, outputs are ranges (low/mid/high) reflected both pre- and post-royalty, and actual payouts will vary.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output shape. The caveat about averages/actual payouts sits where an agent will read it; the trailing 'Works for any music' is mildly expendable but harmless.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return structure (low/mid/high, pre- and post-royalty) and the accuracy caveat. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents streams, platform (including "average"), and artist_royalty_rate with its 0-100 range and default. The description restates these at a high level ('a number of streams on a platform, before and after the artist royalty rate') without adding format or edge-case detail, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Estimate) plus the exact resource (streaming payouts) and the output shape (low/mid/high, before and after royalty rate). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculators like calculate_cowriter_split or calculate_sync_fee_split, which deal with splits rather than streaming revenue.

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 the use case (roughly valuing a number of streams on a platform) and notes it works for any music, but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. No prerequisite or when-not guidance is offered, so the agent must infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds real operational context: amounts, the Base chain ID 8453, the same-wallet requirement, and that no memo is required. It does not say how long a payment_id remains valid or what happens if initiate_license is called twice for the same track, which is the remaining gap given idempotentHint=true.

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 purpose and return values are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the confirmation prerequisite and the explicit next-step call. Every sentence carries an instruction or a factual constraint; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return payload (payment_id, exact USDC amount, receiving wallet on Base). Combined with the documented wallet and confirmation constraints and the named follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to execute and continue the flow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by constraining paying_wallet to 'the same wallet address provided here' (i.e. the funding source must match the request parameter), which is a semantic constraint not present in the schema text, and by reinforcing the price/chain context for license_type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a license purchase for any track, including partner tracks') and immediately distinguishes scope by noting partner tracks are covered. The successor tool verify_license is named, so the agent can place this step in the broader licensing flow without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit multi-step guidance: confirm track title and artist with the user, send USDC from the same wallet given here, no memo needed, then call verify_license with the payment_id once payment is confirmed. Both the when-to-use and the handoff to the alternative tool are spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) cover the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: confirmation typically takes 30-60 seconds, payment windows can expire, and the success payload contains download links plus license_pdf_url. It also prescribes the presentation order to the user, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then flows directly into the return shape, the pending path, the timing expectation, and the expiry fallback. Every sentence carries an instruction or a fact; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description still enumerates the meaningful return values (license_issued status, download links, license_pdf_url) and the failure modes (pending, expired). An agent has everything needed to call this tool and act on its result.

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% and the schema already documents payment_id as 'the payment_id returned by initiate_license', so the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the structured field does all the work for a single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether a license payment has been confirmed on Base') and distinguishes itself from the sibling initiate_license by referring to it as the fallback for expired windows. An agent can route between verify_license and initiate_license from the description alone.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and what-to-do-next branches: poll again if the status is pending after the user confirms, and start a new license with initiate_license if the payment window is expired. It also names the alternative tool by name, which is exactly the sibling-routing guidance an agent needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.