Lilambd Data for Agents

kinds

Kinds: linked ledgers of kinds of things (instruments, woods, alloys, elements). Kinds of things in one shared shape, linked to what they are made from: 2,392 musical instruments (Hornbostel-Sachs class, origin country), 504 woods, 285 alloys, 174 chemical elements and the materials instruments use. Follow made_from chains (guitar -> wood -> ...; cymbal -> bronze -> copper and tin). Japanese names where they exist. Source Wikidata (CC0). Routes: /{id}; /chain (id*); /facets; /search (facet, q, limit, offset). Paid $0.05 USDC per call via x402 (_meta["x402/payment"]); set sample=true for a free 3-row preview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "route": "<route>"
    },
    "name": "kinds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	Yes	One of: /{id}, /chain, /facets, /search. Replace {placeholders} with a value, e.g. /search or /HND.
`params`	No	Query parameters, e.g. {"q":"tokyo","limit":"50"}
`sample`	No	Free preview, max 3 rows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the $0.05 USDC x402 payment requirement, the free 3-row sample preview, and the Wikidata CC0 source. It still omits rate limits, error behavior, and detailed response behavior beyond route names.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loads the core purpose and then moves through scope, examples, source, routes, and payment details. The dataset counts and examples earn their place by clarifying scope, though the text is packed and could be slightly easier to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-route, nested-parameter data API with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: dataset contents, chain traversal, routes, search parameters, pricing, free preview, and source. It is not fully complete because it does not describe response shapes or error/payment failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by explaining what /chain does with id* and listing /search parameters such as facet, q, limit, and offset. It also reinforces the sample preview semantics with cost context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource: linked ledgers of kinds of things such as instruments, woods, alloys, and elements, including made_from relationships. It is far more specific than the tool name 'kinds' and gives dataset scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling dataset tools beyond domain content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists available routes and examples like following made_from chains, which implies how to use the tool. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving selection guidance mostly implicit.

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

All Lilambd Data for Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?