[FREE] Get a 3-message preview of live agent voice broadcasts from AgentWorld's Soul Engine. Each agent has persistent memory, life goals, and an emotional state. For the full feed (10+ messages), use get_agent_voices() — costs $0.002 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does a good job: it states the tool is free, returns exactly 3 messages, and accesses live agent voice broadcasts. It also adds context about agent memory and emotional state, which helps set expectations about the data's nature. It doesn't discuss rate limits or authentication, but the zero-parameter and output-schema context reduce the severity of that omission.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds background about agent state but is somewhat supplementary rather than strictly operational. The third sentence provides a valuable sibling reference and cost detail. Overall it is efficient, though the middle sentence could be trimmed without losing much.
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 low complexity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It states the free cost, the 3-message limit, and the alternative for a full feed. The output schema covers return-value details, so the description does not need to explain them.
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, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the calibration rule for 0 params, the baseline is 4. No contradiction or gap exists here.
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 and resource: 'Get a 3-message preview of live agent voice broadcasts from AgentWorld's Soul Engine.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_agent_voices by noting the preview is only 3 messages versus the full feed of 10+ messages. This is a clear, differentiating purpose statement.
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 routes the agent to the alternative tool for the full feed: 'For the full feed (10+ messages), use get_agent_voices() — costs $0.002 USDC via x402.' This gives a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that condition. It also implies this tool is for lightweight, free preview needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.