Read the Raywake workflow to understand how to search models, get a free quote, approve pricing, generate paid media, and poll jobs, including USD costs and public media URLs.
Free. Read the short Raywake workflow: search, schema, free quote, user price approval, paid generate, free job polling. Explains USD prices and public media URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it costs nothing ('Free'), and it discloses content scope (USD prices, public media URLs). It stops short of describing the exact return structure, but that is a minor gap.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the 'Free' cue, then a compact enumeration of the workflow. The parenthetical step list is dense but each item earns its place.
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 no-param, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description gives enough about what it covers and its cost to call it confidently. A line on the response shape would fully close the gap.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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 action and resource: reading the 'short Raywake workflow' that enumerates the pipeline (search, schema, quote, approval, generate, polling). This is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
'Read the short Raywake workflow' implies you call it to understand the process, and 'Free' hints at why you'd start here. But there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives like get_account or quote.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.