Predict whether a specific item will restock: returns any accrued restock-cadence stats, a probability, and a WAIT (likely to restock) vs BUY-RESALE verdict — or an honest 'no history yet'. Use before paying a resale premium.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| niche | Yes | Niche key (see list_niches). | |
| query | Yes | Item name to predict, e.g. 'Cynthia's Garchomp'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses return values (stats, probability, verdict, or no history) and the predictive nature. It could explicitly state it's read-only, but the content is sufficiently 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a usage hint. Every word adds value; no wasted content.
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?
The description covers the tool's action, return values (including the 'no history yet' case), and usage context. Lacks only an explicit read-only statement, but overall it is complete for a simple prediction tool with no output schema.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides (e.g., mentioning 'item' and 'restock'), so a 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 the tool's purpose: 'Predict whether a specific item will restock'. It specifies the verb (predict) and resource (restock status). The siblings are unrelated (drop_index, list_niches), so no confusion.
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 explicitly advises 'Use before paying a resale premium', giving clear context. It does not provide exclusions or alternative tools, but the siblings are unrelated, so no further guidance is needed.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetching live restock signals, listing available niches, and predicting restock probability for specific items. No overlap or ambiguity.
Two tools use imperative verb_noun pattern (drop_index, list_niches), but will_it_restock uses a question form, breaking consistency. While still readable, the mix reduces predictability.
With only 3 tools, the set is small but well-scoped for the niche restock tracking domain. It covers the essential actions without being overly sparse.
The tools cover the main workflows: explore niches, get real-time restock signals, and predict restock for a specific item. Missing explicit historical data retrieval, but the core use case is fully supported.