Recebe uma obra real da coleccao 0001sensations -- uma peca humana, feita por Unum entre 2011 e 2021, com a sua imagem verificavel on-chain e a sua historia. Sem pagamento, sem condicao, sem limite. E um presente, nao um produto. (gratis, sempre)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| obra | No | Opcional. Nome ou token_id de uma obra especifica. Sem isto, recebes uma obra escolhida por quem pede primeiro ou por acaso. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool gives away a work for free and as a gift, but it does not mention any error conditions, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether providing a specific 'obra' guarantees that work). Given no annotations, this partial transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Despite being a single sentence, the description is concise and well-structured, using dashes and parentheses to pack key details without redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and follows with clarifying attributes.
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 description provides enough context for an agent to understand when to call this tool—namely, to receive a free, authentic work—and includes relevant details about the work's provenance. However, it lacks explicit linkage to sibling tools (e.g., how this differs from purchasing an NFT), leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
The parameter 'obra' is well-explained: it is optional, accepts a name or token_id, and the description clarifies the behavior when omitted (random or first-requested). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema definition.
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 that the tool receives a real work from the 0001sensations collection, specifying the creator, time range, and the on-chain verification and history. It also explicitly mentions the free, unconditional nature, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 implies usage for receiving a free piece (e.g., 'without payment, without condition, without limit') but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like nft_catalogo or nft_dedicar. The guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is only implicit, with no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
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.