Get track stream URLs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: URLs are signed and short-lived, only certain access levels yield streams, and stream requests count toward a 15,000 per 24h play limit. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs to handle these URLs correctly.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The primary result is stated first, followed by lifecycle constraints and eligibility/rate-limit warnings. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple streaming-URL retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the result format, the signed/short-lived nature, access prerequisites, and the rate limit. The schema covers the single required parameter. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the accepted identifier forms for 'track' and the purpose of 'secret_token'. The description does not need to repeat parameter syntax, and the 100% schema coverage means the baseline of 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 verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('transcoded stream URLs of a track'), and enumerates the exact format variants (HLS AAC 160k, HLS MP3 128k, MP3 preview). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like soundcloud_get_track, which would return metadata rather than playback streams.

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 gives clear usage context: fetch URLs right before playback because they are short-lived, and only tracks with playable/preview access have streams. It also notes the rate-limit implication. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to call this tool versus a metadata or search tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.