Fetch a ChangeGamer resource by slug. Free resources return full metadata and Markdown body. Premium resources require a valid api_key; without one a payment-required object is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Resource slug (e.g. "getting-started") | |
| api_key | No | Access key for premium resources |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so by explaining that free resources return full metadata and Markdown body, while premium resources require an api_key or return a payment-required object. This covers key behavioral traits.
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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. While clear, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating free and premium cases) but remains effective.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return types for free and premium scenarios. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid slug), but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
Both parameters (slug and api_key) are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds semantic value by explaining the role of slug (resource identifier) and api_key (for premium access) in the context of free vs premium resources.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a ChangeGamer resource by slug, and distinguishes between free and premium resources. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_corpus or get_stats.
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 specifies when to use the tool (by slug) and provides context about free vs premium resources. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to choose among siblings like get_full_corpus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking access, fetching corpus (free vs full), pricing, payment, listing, searching, stats, and single resource retrieval. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_access, get_corpus, list_resources). Verbs are uniform and descriptive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a resource access and management API. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive number.
The toolset covers core operations: access verification, corpus retrieval (free and premium), pricing, payment info, resource listing, search, and stats. Missing write operations (e.g., purchase), but acceptable for a read-focused server.