Search Stamps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what the search returns (stamp number, CPID, preview URL, mimetype, creator, tx hash) and highlights a notable behavior: negative stamp numbers are 'cursed' stamps that are pre-protocol-rule artifacts but still indexed. This goes beyond the obvious 'search' semantics, though it omits details like pagination or result limits.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides query examples, return fields, and a useful edge-case note about cursed stamps. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the description explains both input semantics and return fields. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return values. Minor gaps such as pagination, result limits, or match behavior are not covered, but for a search endpoint this is adequately complete.

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%, so the description must fully explain the single 'q' parameter. It does: q is free text that can match creator name, CPID/asset name (e.g., NAMEDPEPE), stamp number, or a tx hash fragment. This gives the agent concrete guidance for constructing valid queries, fully compensating for the bare string 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search stamps by free text.' It enumerates the exact queryable fields (creator name, CPID/asset name, stamp number, tx hash fragment) and the returned fields, making it clear this is a free-text lookup tool rather than a list/get operation. The resource scope ('stamps') also separates it from sibling tools like search_src20.

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 context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent has a free-text fragment of a creator name, CPID/asset name, stamp number, or tx hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the query semantics strongly imply the right scenario, especially compared to list_stamps and get_stamp.

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