fetchRetrieve the full text of one iFun post by the id returned from search. Use this to read a search result in full before citing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post id, as returned in a `search` result. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns 'full text' and that it is for reading before citing. This adds context beyond annotations without contradiction, contributing valuable transparency.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the action and source; the second gives explicit usage guidance. Well-structured, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple (one required param, output schema present). The description covers the what, when, and source, and since an output schema exists, return format needn't be described. Minor omissions like error behavior are not significant for this scope, so it is nearly complete.
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 description already fully documents the parameter ('Post id, as returned in a `search` result'). The tool description repeats this same information without adding new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value here; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Retrieve the full text') on a specific resource ('one iFun post') and ties it to the id from `search`. It distinguishes from potential alternatives by explicitly referencing search as the source of the id, making the tool's unique role clear.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to read a search result in full before citing it,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. It implies when not to use (when you don't have an id from search) but does not name alternative tools like `get_post`. This is nearly explicit guidance, just missing direct exclusions.
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: get_post by id, joke_of_the_day for today's joke, random_joke for any joke, random_video for videos, and search for keyword queries. The only slight overlap is between joke_of_the_day and random_joke, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming patterns are mixed: 'get_post' uses verb_noun, 'joke_of_the_day' uses a noun phrase, 'random_joke' and 'random_video' use adjective_noun, and 'search' is a bare verb. This inconsistency makes the API feel less predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a humor/content retrieval service. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The set covers core content retrieval: specific posts, daily/random jokes, random videos, and keyword search. Missing dedicated getters for quotes or fun facts, but the search tool can find those, so the gap is minor and workable.