Look up a piece of content on the Opedd registry by URL. Returns the article title, publisher, available license types, and pricing (human republication price and AI training/inference price). Always call this first to check if content is licensable and what it costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The canonical URL of the article or content to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses output fields and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any edge cases (e.g., unavailable content). However, for a simple lookup tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 action and resource, then returns/usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema details.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input (URL), the output (title, publisher, licenses, pricing), and the appropriate context ('Always call this first'). This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% (url described as 'canonical URL'), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that lookup is 'by URL' but adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, such as format expectations or non-canonical URL handling.
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 'Look up' with a clear resource ('content on the Opedd registry by URL'), and further clarifies the lookup scope by listing returned data (title, publisher, license types, pricing). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'get_content' or 'browse_registry' by emphasizing licensing/cost information.
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 'Always call this first to check if content is licensable and what it costs' gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the directive is clear and contextually strong.
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.
