Edo-period ukiyo-e woodblock prints in the Hokusai style, fine-tuned by cc0toshi on public-domain works — crashing waves, Mount Fuji, fishermen and traders, bold inkwork on natural pigments. CC0 / public domain output. [PAID: $0.069 USDC per call via x402; async — returns a job_id to poll]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Input prompt for this service. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, async nature, polling requirement, CC0/public domain output. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a generative tool these are reasonable. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence with structured information: purpose first, then style details, licensing, and payment/async behavior. Every phrase adds value; 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?
Given 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, style, licensing, cost, and async behavior. It does not detail the response format beyond job_id, but this is sufficient for a simple generation 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% (single 'prompt' parameter with description). The tool description adds context that the prompt should be in Hokusai ukiyo-e style, supplementing the generic schema description.
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 clearly states the tool generates Edo-period ukiyo-e woodblock prints in Hokusai style, with specific examples (crashing waves, Mount Fuji). It distinguishes from siblings like monet-gen or van-gogh-gen by the unique artistic style.
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?
Description mentions paid ($0.069 USDC) and async (returns job_id to poll), providing context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though style differentiation is implied by sibling names.
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.
