get_categoryCategory dossier: totals plus the top sponsors and podcasts in the category. Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The category slug from list_categories |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Free to call' and mentions return content (totals, top sponsors, podcasts) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. It adds some value beyond annotations but is 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, directly states the purpose and adds a cost note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 tool's simplicity (single param, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return content (totals, top sponsors, podcasts). Minor gap: not specifying if 'top' means a fixed number or all. Overall mostly complete.
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 single parameter 'slug' is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 'Category dossier: totals plus the top sponsors and podcasts in the category', which specifies the verb (get a dossier) and resource (category), and distinguishes from siblings like list_categories (just list) and get_podcast/get_sponsor (single entity).
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 usage for fetching detailed category info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_categories for a list, or other detail tools). It says 'Free to call' but that's more cost than usage guidance.
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 clear, distinct purposes. Overlap exists between search/search_sponsors and fetch/get_sponsor, but descriptions clarify the different use cases (deep-research compatibility vs. full structured queries). Overall, an agent can reliably differentiate tools.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., create_list, get_sponsor), but two tools (fetch, search) are single verbs without a noun, breaking consistency. This introduces minor confusion about their scope.
17 tools is a reasonable number for a podcast sponsorship database, covering search, retrieval, list management, and contact operations. It's not overly heavy nor too thin for the domain.
The tool surface covers primary operations: searching sponsors/podcasts, retrieving details, managing lists, and handling contacts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update sponsor data, but that's likely read-only), but core workflows are well-supported.