venice_get_characterRetrieve a public Venice character by slug with an API key; use this endpoint when you need character details and cannot use x402 wallet authentication.
Get one public Venice character by slug. API key required — this endpoint does not accept x402 wallet auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Public character slug, e.g. "alan-watts". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context the annotations cannot: the endpoint requires an API key and explicitly rejects x402 wallet auth, which prevents a real failure mode at call time.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the auth constraint. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed 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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient: what it returns (public character fields) and error behavior on a bad slug are the only gaps, and the auth caveat is the highest-value addition already present.
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 100% and the slug property already carries a format pattern and an example ('alan-watts'). The description adds only the phrase 'by slug', which restates the schema rather than extending it, so the baseline 3 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 verb and resource — 'Get one public Venice character by slug' — which distinguishes it from the listing sibling venice_list_characters by the singular scope and slug lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/plural distinction is clear.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when you already know a character's slug and want that one record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer venice_list_characters (discovery) over this tool, nor any note about what happens with an unknown slug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.