CardVolume

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the price is a median of at least 5 verified sales in 90 days, sales carry source URLs, and it discloses the full response contents. It stops short of describing pagination or behavior when fewer than 5 sales exist.

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, front-loaded with the payload and ending with accepted input forms. No filler, though the payload list is dense enough to read as a run-on.

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 three-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back and how prices are derived, which is the key ambiguity. It does not address behavior for cards with fewer than 5 verified sales or pagination of the sale list.

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 67%, so descriptions exist for id and query. The description restates the accepted forms and clarifies that query returns the best match when id is unknown, but adds little on max_sales (no mention of the 50/200 default and cap). Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Full verified data for one card') and enumerates the exact payload: key facts, prices per version/grade, last/record sale, population, and every sale with source URL. This is sharply distinguishable from siblings like search_cards or list_record_sales.

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 explains the three accepted input forms (id, URL, query), which implicitly tells the agent this is the tool for looking up a single known card. However, it does not say when to prefer search_cards over the query path, nor when to use list_record_sales instead of the sales list bundled here.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields and the dual-source agreement check, but omits anything about pagination, size limits, or what happens with an unrecognized set id.

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 filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the invocation shortcut follows. 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 correctly enumerates the returned fields and covers both invocation modes (with and without id). Adequate for a read-only, single-parameter tool, with only minor gaps around error cases.

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 id parameter's format is already documented. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that id is optional and that omitting it lists available sets — behavior the schema alone does not convey.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: every card in a set with number, type, rarity, holo version, and cross-source agreement. This implicitly separates it from get_card (single card) and search_cards (query-based), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives one useful usage cue — call with no arguments to enumerate available sets — but says nothing about when to prefer this over get_card or search_cards, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation rule and the returned fields (venue, date, source URL), which is real value. It says nothing about pagination limits or how the 'verified' filter is applied, so it stays at an adequate 3.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary behavior (highest sale per group) and then appends the sort order and returned fields. No filler. It reads as a compressed fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 does cover the key returned fields (venue, date, source URL), which is helpful. However, it omits any parameter behavior and pagination semantics for a tool whose only inputs are limit and category, leaving meaningful gaps given the schema's 0% description coverage.

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% for two parameters, and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'category'. The schema exposes constraints (default 20, max 100) and an enum of categories, but with no prose the agent gets no semantic explanation of how category filtering interacts with the per-group aggregation. The description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 pins down a specific resource and aggregation: the highest verified sale per card/version/grade, sorted largest first. It clarifies what the otherwise ambiguous name 'record_sales' means, which is genuinely useful. It does not explicitly differentiate from the siblings (get_card, get_set_checklist, search_cards), though they are clearly non-overlapping domains.

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 versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to search_cards or get_card. The agent must infer that this is the sales-lookup endpoint purely from the name.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by naming the returned fields (ids, titles, market price, record sale), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits result limits or empty-result behavior.

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 wasted words; the purpose and searchable fields are front-loaded, and the get_card pointer is placed at the end as a follow-up cue.

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 return fields, and the read-only/open-world annotations cover safety. The only gap is that limit and category semantics are unaddressed, which is minor for a three-parameter search 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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that the query matches name, set, number or player. However it says nothing about the role of the category enum or the limit parameter, leaving two of three parameters to be inferred from 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find trading cards tracked by CardVolume') plus the searchable fields (name, set, number, player) and the return shape. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_card by noting that full data requires that tool.

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 routes the agent to get_card with an id when full data is needed, which is the natural follow-up. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over get_set_checklist or list_record_sales, so the sibling coverage is partial.

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