sftunes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the content topics and that it is 'Free,' but lacks disclosure of any behavioral traits such as return format, potential side effects, or limitations.

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 very concise, consisting of one short sentence. It is front-loaded with key topics, but could be slightly more structured without sacrificing brevity.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple informational tool. It covers the main topics, though additional details about output format or usage context could enhance completeness.

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?

With zero parameters, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 4, and the description adequately explains the tool's purpose.

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 provides information about 'What SFtunes is, how x402 payment works, and the tapemaker revenue split.' This distinguishes it from siblings 'get_tape' and 'list_tapes', which focus on individual tapes.

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 the tool is for general platform information, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing that the item is public, that calls cost $0.01 USDC via x402, and what content is returned. It does not detail error behavior or payment failure handling, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three tight sentences with no waste. It front-loads the resource and ID forms, then adds return contents and cost, all of which earn their place.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains the accepted ID forms, returned track fields, and payment requirement. It could be slightly more complete on error cases or response shape, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the sole parameter, and it does: tape_id accepts either a tape uuid or top10-<handle> for a person's Top 10 + Side B. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema, though no concrete UUID example is provided.

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 states a specific retrieval action and resource: one public SFtunes item by tape_id. It distinguishes this from the plural listing sibling by emphasizing 'One' item and by naming the exact ID forms accepted.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a tape uuid or top10-<handle> and need a single item. The description does not explicitly route agents to list_tapes for browsing or about_sftunes for service metadata, so alternative selection remains inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious cost of $0.01 USDC per call via x402, clarifies that only public items are included, and specifies the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or the response envelope, but for a simple listing, this is significant behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the cost is stated in the second sentence. Every word is informative; no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 covers the resource scope, item types, returned fields, and cost. Given that there is no output schema, it provides a good mental model of the result. It lacks details about pagination or the overall response format, but the tool is simple enough that the information is largely sufficient for correct 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, so the schema already communicates that no arguments are required. The description adds meaning by explaining what the result contains (id, title, tapemaker handle, track_count) and the two item types, which helps the agent understand the output. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 opens with 'Index of all public SFtunes items', clearly specifying the operation (list all) and the resource (public SFtunes items). It distinguishes content types (mixtapes and Top 10 lists) and lists the returned fields, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_tape.

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 retrieving a catalog of all public items and mentions the cost per call, which is a usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_tape or about_sftunes, nor does it state when not to use it. The 'Index of all' phrasing gives some guidance, but no alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.