Search historical Estonian goldsmiths' maker's marks (monograms/letters) by lettering, town, or century. Returns marks with the attributed master (when known), town, active years, and the citing source. Audience: collectors and antique dealers as well as researchers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| town | No | Guild town. | |
| query | No | Mark lettering, e.g. "IHM". | |
| century | No | Century, e.g. 18 for the 1700s. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds return field details (master, town, active years, citing source), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
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-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, covering purpose, parameters, and audience without extraneous words.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple search tool with annotations covering safety and open world, but it omits explanation of the optional 'page' parameter, which is important for pagination.
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 already describes town, query, and century; description merely summarizes these. It does not clarify the 'page' parameter, which lacks a schema description, and offers no additional detail beyond the schema.
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 verb 'search', the specific resource 'historical Estonian goldsmiths' maker's marks', and distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting artists, exhibitions, press, and works.
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 mentions search criteria (lettering, town, century) and audience, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
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 targets a unique entity or action (e.g., get_artist vs. search_artists, get_relations vs. get_stats). No two tools have overlapping purposes, so an agent can clearly distinguish them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: either get_<entity> or search_<entity>. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different verbs.
12 tools is well-scoped for an archive server covering artists, exhibitions, works, organizations, marks, press, and graph relations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main entities (artists, works, exhibitions, organizations) and provides search and retrieval for all key types. Additional tools like get_relations and get_timeline fill gaps for connected data and chronology, making the set feel complete for its domain.