normalize_audioNormalize audio to a bounded 128 kbps MP3 and return base64 output plus loudness measurements. Costs $0.01.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| maxSeconds | No | ||
| targetLufs | No | ||
| audioBase64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing the monetary cost ($0.01) and the output format (base64 plus loudness), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions detected.
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 extremely concise (two sentences, 20 words) and front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose: action, output, and cost. No redundancy.
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 that the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description misses critical information about input parameters, processing details, and potential constraints. While the cost and output format are mentioned, the lack of parameter explanations makes the description incomplete for effective use.
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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations. The tool description fails to mention or explain any of these parameters (url, maxSeconds, targetLufs, audioBase64), leaving their semantics entirely unclear.
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 'normalize', the resource 'audio', and specifies the output format (base64 MP3) along with additional return value (loudness measurements) and cost ($0.01). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated (PDF, Solana).
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 normalizing audio to MP3 with loudness measurement, and the cost provides a decision factor. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.
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.
The Solana tools are distinct among themselves, but the inclusion of normalize_audio and pdf_to_markdown creates domain confusion. An agent cannot easily determine when to use these media tools in a server named after Solana transaction evidence.
Naming conventions are mixed: normalize_audio uses verb_noun, pdf_to_markdown uses a different pattern, and Solana tools use a prefix but mix noun and verb forms. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server, but the scope is mismatched—two tools are unrelated to Solana transactions, making the set feel poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
The Solana tools cover priority fees, token analysis, transaction analysis, and simulation, which are useful for transaction evidence, but missing operations like transaction broadcast or account details. The unrelated audio and PDF tools add noise rather than completeness.