Embed invisible DCT-domain watermark into an image. Encodes a text payload into luminance channel frequency coefficients. Survives light compression. FREE. (FREE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG image | |
| payload | Yes | Text payload to embed (max 256 chars) | |
| strength | No | Embedding strength (0.1-1.0, higher = more robust but more visible) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the watermark is invisible, uses DCT-domain, and survives light compression. However, it contradicts the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by describing a write operation. This contradiction reduces trust. Without annotations, it would better convey the modifying nature.
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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds key details. However, the repetition of 'FREE' is unnecessary and slightly degrades quality. Overall 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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must clarify what the tool returns (e.g., base64-encoded watermarked image). It does not mention the return format or any post-processing steps. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.
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 100%, so the description adds limited value. It mentions DCT-domain and luminance channel, which are technical details beyond the schema, but does not provide essential usage context for parameters like 'strength' beyond what the schema already describes. Baseline 3 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's purpose: embedding an invisible DCT-domain watermark into an image. It specifies the encoding mechanism (luminance channel frequency coefficients) and a key property (survives light compression). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'watermark_detect' which detects watermarks.
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 mentions the tool is 'FREE' but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools. Usage context is implied for embedding watermarks but lacks explicit recommendations.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—artwork retrieval, image processing, asset management, watermarking, etc.—with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like enrich_metadata and get_artwork_oracle are differentiated by depth and purpose.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artwork, remove_background, register_hash). The few non-verb-starting names (compliance_manifest) are standard and do not break the overall pattern.
27 tools is slightly above the typical range but justifiable given the broad domain covering artwork access, image processing, and digital rights. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search, retrieve, analyze, edit, save, and verify assets. Gaps are minimal—e.g., no metadata deletion tool—but the core workflows are fully supported, and the inclusion of compliance and provenance tools adds value.