sftunes

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating it explains topics and is 'Free'. It implies no destructive actions, but it does not mention if the tool is idempotent, requires authentication, or returns static content. Adequate but minimal for a read-only info 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the covered topics. Every word adds value; no wasted space.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., formatted text, simple string). For a simple information tool, the description is adequate but incomplete regarding output format.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Baseline of 4 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 provides information about SFtunes, x402 payment, and revenue split. It distinguishes from siblings (get_tape, list_tapes) which focus on tape details. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' or 'Get info', reducing clarity slightly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The context of sibling tools suggests it is for general information, but the description does not explicitly state this or provide any usage criteria.

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 full burden. It discloses that the call costs $0.01 USDC via x402 and 80% goes to the creator, and notes that the mixtape is public. It does not mention idempotency or error behavior, but for a retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key details, followed by a brief cost note. No wasted 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned and the cost model. It could mention possible errors (e.g., invalid ID) but is otherwise complete.

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 schema provides no description for tape_id (0% coverage), but the description clarifies it is a UUID and that it identifies the mixtape. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, although it could specify format more precisely.

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 that the tool retrieves a single public SFtunes mixtape by its tape_id (uuid), and it lists the specific return fields (title, description, tapemaker, tracks with details). This distinguishes it from siblings: list_tapes (for listing multiple) and about_sftunes (likely general info).

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 fetching a specific mixtape by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like list_tapes (for browsing) or about_sftunes (for service info). No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

The description discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC per call via x402) which is valuable behavioral information for an agent. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects, though the indexing nature suggests no side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary fluff. Highly efficient.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the output fields and cost. It could mention pagination or ordering but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds value by specifying the output structure (id, title, tapemaker handle, track_count) and cost, which the empty schema does not convey.

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 an index of all public SFtunes mixtapes with specific fields (id, title, tapemaker handle, track_count). It uses specific verb 'index' and resource 'public SFtunes mixtapes', distinguishing it from siblings like get_tape (single tape) and about_sftunes (general info).

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 listing all public tapes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not or specific conditions are mentioned, and sibling tools are not referenced.

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