gamedatakit

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 does disclose a key behavioral aspect: the tool is paid ($0.005 via x402). It also implies a read-only metadata lookup. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or response format quirks, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and cost. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes the essential payment detail without any fluff. Every word 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 string parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview by listing the types of metadata returned. However, it omits details about the response structure (since no output schema exists) and potential failure modes, which could be important for a paid tool. It is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'name'. The description implies that 'name' refers to a game name, but it does not provide specifics about format, exact matching, or case sensitivity. This is a minimal but insufficient addition beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 identifies the tool as providing IGDB game metadata, specifically details, ratings, and similar games. It distinguishes from siblings by naming IGDB as the source, making it different from Steam-related tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it reads more like a label than an instruction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (steam_app_intel, steam_deals, etc.). The description implies it is for IGDB game metadata, but it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool is preferred or appropriate, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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 significant behavioral trait: 'Paid: $0.005 per call via x402,' informing the agent of cost implications. It also sets expectations for response content by listing the data returned. It does not mention failure behaviors or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool, the cost disclosure adds meaningful transparency.

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 short clauses, front-loading the tool's purpose and then listing concrete data types. The pricing information is concise and valuable. No filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding scope and cost.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description does enough by naming the response categories: 'details, live player count, review summary, owner estimate.' It also notes the pricing model. It lacks examples or edge-case handling, but for a low-complexity informational tool with a simple input, this suffices.

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 fully documents the one parameter (appid) with a description 'Steam app ID,' so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but given 100% schema coverage, the schema is sufficient. The description does not clarify the format or range of appid, but that is not required for a simple integer field.

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 enumerates what the tool provides—'details, live player count, review summary, owner estimate'—making its purpose concrete with specific data elements. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but 'Full Steam app intelligence' combined with the list conveys the function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the listed data types set it apart from general game metadata or 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 implies use when the user needs comprehensive Steam app data, as indicated by 'Full Steam app intelligence' and the enumerated fields. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, and the paid per-call note is a cost consideration rather than a usage exclusion. This makes the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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 present, so the description must disclose side effects, safety, and response behavior. It only states that deals are value-ranked and that the call costs $0.005. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor describe pagination or rate limits. The ranking criteria are disclosed, which is helpful, but other behavioral traits are omitted.

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 extremely concise, containing only the core purpose and pricing in two short phrases. It is front-loaded with 'Value-ranked current Steam deals' and avoids unnecessary words.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the parameters affect results. It does not explain the effect of count, min_review, min_discount, or the response structure. The cost and ranking are covered, but the overall specification is thin for an agent to correctly invoke with desired filters.

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 input schema has no descriptions for any of the three parameters. The description does not explain count, min_review, or min_discount, nor does it connect them to the ranking criteria. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing Steam deals, ranked by value (discount, review score, savings). This distinguishes it 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention steam_top_sellers or other sibling tools, nor does it state conditions (e.g., 'use when you need discounted games'). The cost note is about pricing, not usage.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the payment requirement ($0.005 per call via x402) which is a critical behavior beyond the basic intent. However, it lacks other behavioral details such as response format, error handling, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the payment detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and cost. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of game names, rankings, prices), which is a notable gap in completeness.

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 already provides a full description of the 'country' parameter ('ISO country code'), with 100% coverage. The tool description only adds 'by region,' which is consistent but does not add new semantic meaning. Baseline 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 the tool's function: 'Current top-selling games on Steam by region.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like steam_deals (deals) and game_metadata (metadata) by focusing on top-selling status.

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 provides clear context for what the tool returns, implying when to use it (to see top-selling games by region). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, nor does it discuss trade-offs with sibling tools like steam_deals or steam_app_intel.

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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the pricing ($0.02 via x402) and explains the scoring methodology. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or output format, but for a simple paid data query, the cost and metric are key behavioral details.

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 a compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose and includes the formula and cost. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the metric is calculated, and the cost. It could mention the return format, but the element types are inferable from the purpose.

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 one parameter 'limit' with a default but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter at all. The name 'limit' is suggestive, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation, and it does not.

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's function: 'Twitch categories ranked by hype score' with a specific formula and metric. It distinguishes from Steam-focused sibling tools by explicitly focusing on Twitch categories.

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 provides a clear use case ('leading indicator of trending games'), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it compared to the Steam-focused siblings.

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