List all licensable articles for the authenticated publisher (requires OPEDD_PUB_BEARER, or legacy OPEDD_API_KEY). Returns articles with titles, descriptions, pricing, and sales statistics. Use article IDs from this list to purchase licenses via purchase_license.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by license type availability | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default: 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, the returned data fields (titles, descriptions, pricing, sales statistics), and the relationship to purchase_license. While it doesn't discuss rate limits or error cases, it provides solid behavioral context for a read-oriented 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 dense sentences deliver purpose, auth, return contents, and downstream usage without any waste. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, followed by necessary specifics.
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 no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does ('titles, descriptions, pricing, and sales statistics'). It also covers authentication and a practical use case. It could mention pagination explicitly, but limit/offset are already in the schema, so completeness is high.
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 parameter (type, limit, offset) already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('licensable articles for the authenticated publisher') and a well-defined scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly connecting its output to a concrete downstream action ('Use article IDs from this list to purchase licenses via purchase_license'), making its role unique.
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 states the required authentication context ('requires OPEDD_PUB_BEARER, or legacy OPEDD_API_KEY') and indicates the typical use case (before purchasing licenses with purchase_license). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like list_feed, but the context is clear enough for appropriate invocation.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but list_feed and stream_feed_ndjson both list licensed articles (with different formats), and browse_registry vs publisher_directory could confuse agents about scope. Overall, the set is mostly clear.
Names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_content, purchase_license). A few outliers like rsl_get and article_53_attestation break the pattern slightly, but the majority are consistent.
17 tools cover buyer, publisher, and discovery workflows. While slightly above the typical 3-15 range, the complexity of the licensing platform justifies the count. No tool seems redundant.
The tool set covers discovery, purchase, content retrieval, compliance, and attestation comprehensively. Minor gaps like missing license management or key rotation are acceptable given the domain scope.
