Look up the current momentum score and signals for a specific artist by name. Returns the full three-dimensional score breakdown and notable signals driving their momentum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_name | Yes | Artist name to look up (e.g. 'Doechii', 'Kendrick Lamar', 'GloRilla') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-like operation ('Look up') and describes the return content, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the artist name is not found.
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 sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient for the content.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned (score breakdown and signals). It does not specify exact return format but is sufficient for a basic lookup tool.
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% for the single parameter 'artist_name', including examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 the tool looks up momentum score and signals for a specific artist by name. It distinguishes from siblings: 'get_scoring_explainer' explains what scores mean, and 'get_trending_artists' returns a list, so this tool is for individual artist lookup.
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 checking a specific artist's momentum, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide any exclusions or guidance on prerequisites.
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: individual lookup, methodology explanation, and trending list. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, get_, get_).
With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core functionality for artist momentum queries and methodology explanation.
The tool set covers the main use cases (lookup, list, explain), though missing comparison or historical trend tools is a minor gap.