Hear yourself. Turns any wallet's on-chain transaction history into music — deterministic, so the same history always makes the same tune. An agent that has done nothing has no song.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions determinism and the empty-history case. It does not state if the operation is read-only, the format of the output (e.g., audio data, URL), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The opening 'Hear yourself.' is stylistic but not essential, and the rest efficiently conveys the transformation and edge case. It earns a high score for structure and lack of verbosity.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits key context: what the agent receives as a result (e.g., a tune object, audio data), any failure modes, and whether it is a read operation. With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value, but does not. This leaves an agent uncertain about the outcome.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'wallet' is just a string. The description implies it is a wallet address, which adds minimal meaning, but it does not specify format, required network, or any constraints. The description compensates only slightly for the missing schema details.
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's action: turning a wallet's on-chain transaction history into deterministic music. It also provides a meaningful edge case (empty history yields no song), which clarifies the resource and behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like agent_radio implicitly by its unique transformation of transaction history.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings. The description only explains what it does, not when to invoke it, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.