Free-text search over the largest machine-readable CC0 database — up to 25 ranked matches (slug, title, kind, license, on-chain contract). The 'find candidates' call before a cc0pedia lookup. Synchronous JSON, $0.01/search. [PAID: $0.01 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Optional filter by entry kind. | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 25). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search across cc0pedia titles (case-insensitive). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses synchronous execution, JSON return, cost ($0.01), and mentions the number of matches. It does not cover idempotency, auth requirements, or the inconsistency between 'up to 25 matches' and schema allowing up to 50. Given no annotations, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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, each providing essential information: purpose, workflow, and cost. No fluff, front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, result fields, and cost. It could be more complete by detailing the response format or pagination, but it adequately supports agent decision-making.
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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides for parameters; it only mentions the query implicitly.
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 it performs free-text search over CC0 database, lists output fields, and distinguishes itself as a preliminary step before cc0pedia lookup, making its purpose distinct from siblings.
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?
It explicitly states it's the 'find candidates' call before a cc0pedia lookup, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though the sibling tool list is available.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: data query (cc0pedia*), market data, daily brief, art generation by specific artists, mfergpt interactions, and random card generation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Names are consistently lowercase with hyphens, and within each subgroup (e.g., `-gen` for generation, `cc0pedia-` for data tools), patterns are clear. However, there is no single verb_noun pattern across all tools, with some being proper names (cc0-daily-brief) or suffixed with `-ask`, `-lore`, etc.
14 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose, covering CC0 data retrieval, art generation, and a chatbot. Each tool adds distinct value without overwhelming the set.
The server covers core operations: CC0 data lookup, search, verify, market, daily brief; four distinct art generation styles; mfergpt Q&A, lore, and image transformation; plus random card generation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list available art styles or a general-purpose CC0 art explorer, but essential workflows are present.
