Value-ranked current Steam deals (discount + review score + savings). Paid: $0.005 per call via x402.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "steam_deals"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| min_review | No | ||
| min_discount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.