venice_character_reviewsFetch paginated public reviews for a Venice character by slug using an API key; wallet authentication 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the endpoint requires an API key and rejects x402 wallet auth, which matters because the sibling set has an entire x402 family. It still omits result ordering and page-size defaults.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the auth caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers auth and pagination but leaves return structure and ordering unexplained. With only one of three parameters documented in the schema, the definition is adequate but not self-sufficient.
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% — slug is documented with an example, but page and pageSize have no descriptions at all. The description's word 'paginated' gestures at those two parameters without explaining defaults, maximum page size (100), or how pagination terminates, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 specific verb and resource — 'List paginated public reviews for a Venice character' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from venice_get_character or venice_chat_with_character. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 second sentence is an authentication constraint (API key, not x402), not guidance on when to choose this tool over the character-related siblings. An agent gets no signal about when to fetch reviews versus character details or chat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.