List Parallax’s services with real pricing. Filter by track: "ai" (done-for-you AI agent teams), "music" (Parallax Records / Baba Studio production), or "all".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | Which track to list. Defaults to "all". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation listing services, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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 main action. Every word is necessary, no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and filter options. Missing details like response format or pagination, but these are not critical for list retrieval.
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% with a single parameter. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning of each track enum value ('ai' = AI agent teams, 'music' = production). This enriches the schema's minimal 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 states the tool lists services with real pricing, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pricing by emphasizing listing with real pricing and filtering by track, which is unique among sibling tools.
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 explains when to filter by track, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pricing or start_project. Usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or comparisons.
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 serves a distinct purpose: company overview, service listing, specific pricing, booking a call, and starting a project. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern in snake_case (e.g., book_call, get_company_info, list_services), making tool selection predictable and intuitive.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of sales and project initiation, covering the essential customer journey without unnecessary clutter.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from initial discovery (get_company_info, list_services, get_pricing) to conversion (book_call, start_project), with no obvious gaps.