Recebe uma obra real da coleccao 0001sensations -- uma peca humana, feita por Jorge Silva Martins 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the parameter, the description reveals the operation is a gift, the work is verifiable on-chain, and if no obra specified, it's chosen by first requester or by chance. This provides behavioral insight beyond the schema.
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?
Description is fairly concise but includes artistic details (Jorge Silva Martins, 2011-2021) that, while adding flavor, are not essential for tool invocation. Could be tightened.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. Lacks only explicit usage guidelines.
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 schema covers parameter 100% but description adds crucial context: the effect of omitting the parameter (random/priority-based selection), which aids agent decision.
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 receives a real work from collection 0001sensations, specifying the artist and timeframe, and distinguishes it as a free gift, contrasting with sibling tools like doar or nft_dedicar.
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 implies use when wanting a free digital art piece, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-to-use/not-use guidance. The terms 'no payment, no condition, no limit' hint at context but no alternatives mentioned.
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 nft_dedicar and nft_dedicar_simbolica are easily confused as both link a name to an NFT, differing mainly in ownership requirement and payment. Also, licenca_formal and receber_obra may be confused as both involve acquiring an artwork, though one is a paid license and the other a free gift; descriptions help clarify.
The tool names mix verb-first (doar, receber_obra) and noun-first patterns (nft_catalogo, parceiro_estado), and while they all use snake_case, there is no consistent verb_noun structure across the set. Some names use adjectives (nft_owner_atual, nft_dedicar_simbolica) making the pattern unpredictable.
With nine tools covering the collection, licensing, dedication, donation, and partner program, the server is well-scoped within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct function in the ecosystem.
The server covers the main interactions with the 0001sensations collection, including receiving, licensing, cataloguing, dedicating, and checking ownership. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to browse the physical FISICA collection or manage licenses, but these are workaroundable via URLs or not essential.