venice_get_characterFetch a public Venice character by its slug for use in AI chats. Requires an API key; x402 wallet authentication is not supported.
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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: API key auth is required and this endpoint rejects x402 wallet auth, a behavioral constraint not in the annotations. It omits response shape, but no output schema exists.
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 tight sentences; the core lookup is front-loaded and the auth constraint follows with zero filler.
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-param idempotent read with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the auth caveat is the key missing piece and it is present. Minor gap: no return-value shape, though no output schema is defined and this is a simple getter.
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%; the schema fully documents the slug parameter including its regex pattern and example. The description adds no syntax or format detail, so 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?
Clear verb (Get) + resource (one public Venice character) + selector (by slug). It implies a single-item lookup versus the sibling venice_list_characters, but does not explicitly name that sibling to sharpen the distinction.
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?
States the auth precondition (API key required; x402 wallet auth not accepted), which is a useful usage constraint. However, it never says when to prefer this over venice_list_characters or venice_chat_with_character, leaving alternative selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.