Get a show's payment split

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: absent value blocks are reported as absence rather than errors, and value block presence only means the show can receive payments, not that it has. This meaningfully helps the agent interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and each following sentence earns its place by clarifying weight semantics, absence behavior, and interpretation. There is no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the essential semantics: what the value block contains, how splits are expressed, how absence is represented, and how to interpret the block's meaning. It does not spell out an exact response structure, but there is no output schema and the description gives enough for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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%, and the schema's 'show' parameter already explains accepted forms and auto-detection in detail. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not need to compensate, but it also provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource and its purpose: the value-for-value block for a show, including listener payment wallets and weights. The title adds the verb 'Get,' making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_episode_value, but the show-level scope is stated.

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 interpretive guidance: most shows have no value block, absence is reported plainly rather than as an error, and a value block does not imply payments were received. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context and caveats are clear.

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