Fetch new transcript events from an open Voice Bridge call since the last cursor. Returns partial + final transcripts + system events. Agent should poll in a loop (~500ms-1s). No additional payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Last seq number seen (default 0 = start from beginning) | |
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID from open_voice_bridge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returns types (partial + final transcripts, system events) and payment, but lacks disclosure on side effects, idempotency, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Three sentences: core function, return types, usage advice. No fluff, front-loaded with essential info.
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 output schema, description explains return types but not structure details or error handling. Parameter count low, usage guidance provided. Lacks depth on potential empty returns or system events composition.
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 100% with descriptions. Description adds default for cursor (0) and origin of sessionId. Text clarifies polling behavior and cursor usage, exceeding schema info.
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?
Description specifies the verb 'Fetch', resource 'transcript events from an open Voice Bridge call', and scope 'since the last cursor'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like voice_bridge_say and end_voice_bridge.
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?
Explicitly says to poll in a loop at ~500ms-1s interval and notes no additional payment. Provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among call tools (ai_call, place_call, open_voice_bridge) and image generation/editing tools (generate_image, edit_image, animate_image). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still select the wrong one.
The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., generate_image, send_sms). A few exceptions exist (await_result, check_job_status, epub_to_audiobook) but the overall pattern is strong and predictable.
With 50 tools, the server is very extensive. While each tool earns its place given the broad scope of AI services, the count feels high and could overwhelm agents, making selection less efficient.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering generation, editing, conversion, communication, async management, payments, and error handling. There are no obvious gaps for the stated Bitcoin-powered AI toolkit purpose.
