randomReturn a random food dish image URL from the Foodish API, drawn from any category (biryani, burger, pizza, pasta, dessert, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | No | URL to a random food image |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context about the data source (Foodish API) and return type (image URL), which is useful beyond annotations.
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, direct, and efficient. Every part is meaningful and no redundant information.
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 no parameters, presence of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the source, return type, and scope (any category).
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info; the baseline of 4 applies as it adds no value beyond schema but is not required.
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 returns a random food dish image URL from the Foodish API, specifying the categories (biryani, burger, pizza, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tool 'random_by_category' which likely filters by category.
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 indicates it is a general random pick from any category, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies 'random_by_category' for filtered use.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that differentiate between similar-sounding tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The Polymarket-related tools each focus on a specific aspect (arbitrage, edges, tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread), and memory/subscription tools are neatly separated.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern with underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, there is some inconsistency: single-word names like 'forget' and 'random' mix with multi-word names, and a few names use different structures (e.g., bet_research as noun_noun, random_by_category as adjective_preposition).
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering a broad range of functionalities from data queries to betting and memory. While the number might be justified by the platform's scope, it feels heavy, and the server name 'Foodish' suggests a narrower food-focused purpose, creating a mismatch.
As a general data platform, the tool set is comprehensive, covering queries, research, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and various analytical tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct editing or upload capabilities), but the core workflows are well-supported. However, the server name 'Foodish' implies food-related tools, which are minimal, so completeness relative to the name is poor.