FairStash — Roblox trade values

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds a real behavioral rule beyond that: mixed-game input is refused rather than computed because the scales differ, and it describes the answer format. It does not cover edge cases like unknown item names, but for an annotated read-only tool this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose/result first, input format second, refusal rule last. No filler, and the examples are load-bearing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does specify win/fair/lose plus percent gap. With annotations covering safety and schema documenting all parameters, nothing essential to invoke the tool is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by showing how 'give' and 'get' are written as player speech and by explaining the game constraint: omitting game lets item names decide, while mixing games is rejected.

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 and outcome: it sums both sides of a proposed trade and returns win/fair/lose plus the percent gap. This is clearly a different operation from the sibling value/item tools (get_value, list_values, search_items), so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives clear usage context (a proposed single-game trade) and an explicit when-not condition (mixed-game trades are refused). It does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer get_value/list_values/search_items instead, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a safe, closed read (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the specific return fields (community trade value, demand, catalogue rank, listing frequency, collection date) and the important caveat that values are community estimates rather than official Roblox prices.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers in return fields, a usage example, and a caveat in three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense, but every sentence 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 the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so explicitly (value, demand, catalogue position, listing frequency, collection date) while also flagging the estimate caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 enum already documents the three game values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the game list but adds no new syntax or format guidance for the parameters beyond what is already structured, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('what one item is worth') and names the three supported game catalogues (FTF, MM2, Adopt Me), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_values or check_trade. An agent can tell instantly that this is a single-item valuation lookup.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger with the worked example question ('how much is a Chroma Luger worth in MM2'), so the agent knows what kind of query maps here. It does not, however, mention when to prefer a sibling such as list_values or check_trade, so routing between related tools is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description adds meaningful context on return shape and ordering. It doesn't discuss the limit/default behavior or any pagination concerns, but for a safe read tool this is solid extra detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering, with the optional narrowing and example queries following. Slightly verbose with two example phrasings, but each sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses that items carry community values and page links and are sorted most-valuable-first. Coverage of the limit/default behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the MM2 section slugs. The description's section examples restate what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (most valuable items) with the ordering (most valuable first) and the returned fields (community values, page links). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_value (single item) and search_items (query-driven).

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?

Gives concrete use cases ("what are the most expensive knives in MM2", understanding a game's scale) and explains the optional section narrowing. It does not explicitly name when to prefer search_items or get_value instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it searches across all three games and returns candidates with game, value and page link, and it serves as a disambiguation pre-step. It does not discuss result ordering or limit behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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 with no waste; the scope and return are front-loaded, and the usage condition plus sibling routing follow immediately. 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 the return-shape burden and does describe the returned candidate fields. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and usage plus sequencing against get_value is specified, so an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by framing 'query' as a partial name match spanning all three games, clarifying the substring-search semantics beyond the schema's example strings.

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 (Finds), resource (items), and scope (across all three games by a partial name), plus what is returned (game, value, page link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_value by positioning itself as the ambiguous-name step before exact lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (the name is ambiguous, misspelled, or could belong to more than one game) and which sibling to route to next ('before asking get_value for the exact one'). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.