List empty rectangles available on the Times Rare canvas. Returns coordinates, dimensions, and prices for blocks an agent can claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | No | Tile height (1-20) | |
| w | No | Tile width (1-20) | |
| zone | No | Optional: filter to one zone | |
| limit | No | Max results to return |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose read-only behavior; it does not state that the tool is safe and idempotent. It mentions return data (coordinates, dimensions, prices) but omits whether results are sorted or paginated beyond the limit parameter.
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?
A single sentence that conveys the core function and return values. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should detail the return structure more. It mentions coordinates, dimensions, and prices but not data types or nesting. Also, no side effects or prerequisites are stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the tool's purpose. For example, it does not clarify how 'h' and 'w' filter results, though the schema handles this.
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 empty rectangles on the Times Rare canvas, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'claim_block' (for claiming) and 'get_block' (for individual block details) by focusing on listing available blocks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention of alternatives. The purpose is inferred, but the description lacks context like 'Use this to find blocks before claiming' or 'Do not use if you already know block coordinates'.
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: block discovery, pricing, claiming, reading, survey operations, and service listing. No two tools are ambiguous in their function.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., claim_block, get_block, list_services). The only outlier is 'price_check' which reverses the order, but it's still clear.
8 tools is well-scoped for the canvas domain, covering discovery, pricing, claiming, surveys, and service listing without overcomplicating the surface.
Core workflows (discover, price, claim, survey, list services) are covered. Missing a tool to register or update services, but the overall surface feels complete for the intended use.