get_contact_infoReturns contact information for Symbols of Wealth Studio — email, website, location, and how to engage. Use this when a user wants to actually reach out to or hire Symbols of Wealth Studio, rather than browse the full studio profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently lists the types of information returned (email, website, location, how to engage), giving a clear picture of the tool's behavior. It omits minor details like return format, but these are not critical for a simple contact retrieval 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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a single sibling, the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There are no gaps that would hinder an agent's selection or invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and no parameter explanation is needed in the description.
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 'Returns contact information for Symbols of Wealth Studio' with specific content (email, website, location, how to engage). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_studio_info by noting this is for reaching out rather than browsing the full profile.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when a user wants to actually reach out to or hire Symbols of Wealth Studio, rather than browse the full studio profile.' This clearly indicates when to prefer this tool over the sibling.
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 two tools are mostly distinct: get_studio_info returns the full profile, while get_contact_info focuses on contact details. Some overlap exists since contact info is part of the profile, but the descriptions clearly differentiate the use cases.
Both tool names follow a consistent get_verb_noun pattern, which is predictable and easy for an agent to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server is on the thin side, but for a simple studio info lookup purpose, it is acceptable. The tools are well-scoped and each serves a clear need.
The domain is studio information, and the two tools cover the main needs: getting the full profile and getting contact details. Minor gaps like separate service or pricing breakdowns exist, but the profile already includes them, so the surface is reasonably complete.