PAID $0.10 via x402 (USDC micropayment over HTTP 402). Returns the full text of 'The Birth Partner's Role', a practitioner-verified written guide (English) on how a partner can practically and emotionally support the mother during labour and birth. Takes no parameters. Returns the id, title, the complete guide text, the language, and a verification block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.10 via x402), the exact output (complete guide text, language, verification block), and that it takes no parameters. This is substantial behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage, though it omits failure modes or retry behavior.
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 a single, dense sentence. Payment info is front-loaded, then the resource, then output details. There is no wasted wording, and the structure guides the agent through the most critical facts first.
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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the content, payment, and verification. It doesn't mention error handling or alternatives, but with no params and a clear output, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description explicitly states it takes no parameters, matching the schema exactly. This fulfills the baseline for 0-param tools, adding no extra meaning needed beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('returns') and a precise resource (the full text of a named guide), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the guide and its content. The payment detail is front-loaded, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., get_affirmations, get_stage_guidance). The description implies it returns a specific written guide, but doesn't mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It clearly states no parameters, which helps, but usage context is left to inference.
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 retrieves a distinct type of content (Q&A, affirmations, audio, guide, facts, stage guidance, technique, catalog). The descriptions clearly differentiate them, minimizing confusion for an agent.
Most tools follow a 'get_<content>' pattern, but 'ask' and 'list_catalog' deviate. The naming is clear and readable, but not perfectly uniform.
With 8 tools, the set covers essential content types without being overwhelming. The scope is well-scoped for a pregnancy/birth resource server.
The tools cover a broad range of content (questions, affirmations, audio, guides, facts, stage guidance, techniques, catalog). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no bundled retrieval per stage), but the core lifecycle is complete.