venice_character_reviewsFetch paginated public reviews for a Venice character by slug. Requires an API key; wallet-based x402 auth is not accepted.
List paginated public reviews for a Venice character. API key required — this endpoint does not accept x402 wallet auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| slug | Yes | Public character slug, e.g. "alan-watts". | |
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by adding real auth context: 'API key required — this endpoint does not accept x402 wallet auth,' which meaningfully distinguishes it from the venice_x402_* siblings. It also signals pagination behavior, though it doesn't describe return shape.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the auth caveat. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description carries some burden it doesn't fully meet: return format of the reviews and the semantics of page/pageSize are left unexplained. It is adequate for identifying and selecting the tool, given annotations cover safety, but not complete for confident invocation.
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 only 33% — only 'slug' is documented, while 'page' and 'pageSize' carry no descriptions at all. The description merely says 'paginated' without explaining page numbering, page size limits, or defaults, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 precise verb+resource pair ('List paginated public reviews for a Venice character'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the character-reading siblings like venice_get_character. It stops short of naming a related tool to contrast against, but the resource itself is specific enough to disambiguate.
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 implies usage (fetch reviews for a given character) and notes the auth prerequisite, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as venice_get_character for character metadata, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.