Streamlivr

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by disclosing the full payment model: one cent per credited creator, one-cent minimum, 2 maximum, USDC settlement on Celo via x402, and that an unpaid call returns a 402 with the exact invoice instead of data. That last point is critical operational context an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 pricing rule is restated at least four times in near-identical phrasing ('one cent per creator credited', 'Priced per creator credited', the 50-creator example, the paid-route sentence). The pricing content is valuable but the redundancy bloats the definition and pushes the search/filter semantics into the background.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the response includes total and nextCursor and by explaining the 402-vs-data branch. Combined with the fully documented six-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-routing gap keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that limit is a cost lever and that cursor comes from nextCursor, but this largely repeats what the schema parameters already state, and it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 the specific resource (public creator and brand profiles) and enumerates the fields returned (name, bio, avatar, country, follower counts, verification, account age), which clearly distinguishes a list/directory from a single-profile call. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling creator_profile, leaving the listings-vs-single-profile routing to the tool name 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?

Usage is implied through the filter combinations it advertises (?q=, ?limit=, ?verified=, ?minFollowers=, ?sort=) and the cost-control framing of limit. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus creator_profile or public_posts, and no exclusion guidance beyond the payment behavior.

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?

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the paid route, the USDC 0.01 price, x402 on Celo, and the no-payment fallback that returns payment requirements rather than data. That is exactly the kind of payment and failure-mode transparency an agent needs before invoking it.

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 front-loaded and efficient, with the core purpose and pricing fallback stated up front. The two pricing mentions are slightly redundant, which keeps it from being a 5, but there is no significant 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned profile counts, the payment requirement, and the no-payment fallback. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

The one parameter is fully described in the schema, including where the creator id comes from. The description only restates that lookup is by id, so it does not add much parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 resource and scope: one public creator or brand profile by id, returning published-content and catalogued-track counts. It is specific enough to distinguish from list-oriented siblings like creator_listings and public_posts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: call this when the agent already knows which profile it needs, and frames it as the cheapest way to buy in that situation. It does not explicitly exclude the sibling tools or say when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 route, USDC pricing per credited creator, minimum and maximum cost, invoice behavior, and that an unpaid call returns payment requirements instead of data. These are important behavioral details an agent needs before invoking the 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and return fields, but the payment terms are repeated several times, including the one-cent minimum and exact invoice amount. It is informative but not as tight as it could be.

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 explains the return shape well enough: metadata fields, preview clip availability, label/owner block, post-count attribution, and ownership crediting rules. It also covers payment behavior and unpaid-call behavior completely.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: q is described as title/artist search and pagination is tied to cost because limit determines how many creators are credited and billed. This goes beyond the schema without fully duplicating it.

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 states a specific resource and what it returns: music/audio metadata with title, artist, ISRC, artwork, and preview clips. It also distinguishes recordings from posts by saying credit belongs to the owning artist, never to accounts whose posts used the recording, which helps separate it from public_posts.

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 clear context for searching by title or artist and pagination, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus creator_listings, creator_profile, or public_posts. Usage is implied by the metadata focus rather than stated as routing guidance.

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 only cover the read-only safety profile; the description adds the entire commercial behavior an agent must know: the route is paid, priced at USDC 0.01 per creator credited with a per-request minimum, settled over x402 on Celo, and an unpaid call returns the 402 payment requirements rather than data. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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 first four sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the pricing model is then restated three times in near-identical form ('Priced per creator credited', 'One cent in USDC per creator credited, with a one cent minimum', 'Paid route: USDC 0.01 per creator credited, one cent minimum and 2 maximum'), which reads as repetition and the '2 maximum' phrasing is ambiguous against the earlier 'one cent minimum per request'.

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 paid, cursor-paginated feed with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, attribution semantics, pagination, and the full payment negotiation flow, which is what an agent needs to call it successfully. It is only docked for the ambiguous maximum-charge wording, which leaves the agent unsure of the per-request ceiling.

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 schema already documents q, sort, limit and cursor, including that limit is the cost control. The description restates the same query mechanics (?q=, ?limit=, ?sort=newest|views, nextCursor) and adds only the link between page size and per-creator pricing, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new syntax or format 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?

Opens with a specific resource and enumerates exactly what a row contains (title, caption, hashtags, media type and length, engagement counts, thumbnail), so an agent knows this is a public post feed, not a profile or catalog. It never names the sibling tools (creator_listings, creator_profile, music_catalog) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 browsing/searching public content and states that ?q= matches title, caption, tag or creator country, and that limit/sort/cursor combine with it. It gives no explicit when-to-use-this-versus-creator_listings-or-creator_profile guidance and no exclusions, so usage must be inferred.

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, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-structural context: the call is metered at USDC 0.01 on Celo and an unpaid call returns x402 payment requirements rather than data. That 402 fallback is the key behavior an agent must anticipate and it is disclosed clearly.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then cost and the unpaid fallback. The final clause about the requirements carrying the exact amount is slightly wordy but conveys a non-obvious detail, so it still earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for both branches: the success case (liveness + settlement network) and the unpaid case (x402 requirements). Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-arg tool correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does add the useful note that the returned requirements carry the exact amount for the specific call requested, which is the only 'input-like' nuance available.

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 concrete verb and resource — returns liveness plus the settlement network — which no sibling tool (creator_listings, music_catalog, public_posts) does. An agent can tell immediately this is a connectivity/health probe, not a data fetch.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use it to confirm buyer wallet, facilitator key, and x402 client all work before paying for data. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative tool, but the sibling set is unrelated data endpoints so no routing ambiguity exists.

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