gamedatakit

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It uniquely discloses a paid cost model ($0.005 via x402), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or other side effects. Partial disclosure.

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 one sentence plus a cost note, which is brief. However, it omits important details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. No fluff, but insufficient 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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, usage constraints, or parameter format. It only gives a high-level list of output types and cost. Incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 0% with one parameter 'name' (type string). The description does not add any semantics about what 'name' should be (e.g., exact title, case sensitivity). Baseline for low coverage is higher burden, but the description fails to compensate.

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?

Description states 'IGDB game metadata: details, ratings, similar games' which identifies the resource and output types but lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'fetch', 'get'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by source (IGDB vs. Steam/Twitch), but the purpose is somewhat vague.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Mention of cost ($0.005 via x402) hints at a usage constraint, but no alternatives or exclusions are given. Sibling tools suggest differentiation, but the description does not clarify when to choose this over them.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 via x402), which is important behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error scenarios, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 with no wasted words. The critical information (what the tool provides and its cost) is front-loaded and easily parsed. Ideal length for quick understanding.

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 the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and data categories. However, it omits output structure, potential limits, or prerequisites (e.g., API key). Adequate but not thorough.

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% for the single parameter 'appid', with a description that matches the tool's purpose. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it provides 'Full Steam app intelligence' including specific data types (details, player count, review summary, owner estimate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_metadata (likely simpler) and steam_top_sellers (focused on top sellers). The verb is implied but the resource and scope are well-defined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose steam_app_intel over game_metadata or other siblings. The pricing note is given but not tied to usage context.

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?

The only behavioral detail provided is the cost per call ($0.005 via x402). No annotations exist, and the description omits critical traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens with different parameter values. The cost disclosure is helpful but insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence plus pricing), which aids readability, but it lacks essential information about parameters and usage. It is concise but not effectively structured to convey needed details.

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 the simple input schema and no output schema, the description should at least explain the ranking logic and how parameters filter deals. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 0% (no descriptions for any of the 3 parameters), and the tool description does not mention the parameters at all. The agent receives no guidance on what 'count', 'min_review', or 'min_discount' mean or how they affect results.

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 returns 'current Steam deals' ranked by value based on discount, review score, and savings. This purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'steam_top_sellers' or 'game_metadata'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Only the tool's functionality is described.

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?

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the cost structure ($0.005 per call via x402). However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as caching, rate limits, or what happens on invalid country codes. Partially transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical cost note. Both are concise, front-loaded, and contain no fluff. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and cost but does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of game titles, prices, ranking). Slightly lacking for complete understanding.

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% with the country parameter having a description ('ISO country code'). The tool description's phrase 'by region' adds context that the country parameter filters the listing regionally, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Current top-selling games on Steam by region.' This clearly identifies the verb (list/get), resource (top-selling games on Steam), and scope (by region). It distinguishes from sibling tools like game_metadata and steam_deals.

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 mentions the cost and payment mechanism, which is useful context, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like steam_deals or game_metadata. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives listed.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost of $0.02 via x402, which is helpful, but does not cover other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or read-only status.

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 with two sentences covering purpose and cost. However, it could still include a brief parameter explanation without excessive length.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete but lacks explanation of the limit parameter and any information about the return format or data structure.

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?

The schema has only one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'limit' does, leaving the agent to infer solely from the schema's default value (10). This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool ranks Twitch categories by a specific metric (hype score) and positions it as a leading indicator for trending games. It distinguishes well from sibling tools, which are about Steam data.

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 implies usage for discovering trending Twitch categories but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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