qm_data_lyric_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: price ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), two-phase payment flow (call without 'payment' for requirements, re-call with signed payload), and explicit safety guarantees ('never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds'). It even discloses resale rights.

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?

Long but front-loaded — purpose first, then payment mechanics. Every sentence adds information (price, flow, safety, resale), though the payment/safety material is stated twice (in description and in the 'payment' param), adding mild redundancy.

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?

Complete for a paid data tool with no output schema: it explains how to obtain the payment requirements, how to pay, how the result is returned ('the data comes back in the tool result'), and the trust model, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the two-phase payment mechanics without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (an original lyric line) and its scope (short cosmic/comfort lines, Brian Booms' voice), immediately distinguishing it from the third-party-lyrics sibling qm_lyrics_get by asserting all lines are his own words.

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?

Gives explicit use cases — creative prompts, app copy, bedtime content — and notes the rotation/daily behavior. It does not name the alternative sibling (e.g. qm_lyrics_get) or say when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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