Check if a collectible's price is FAIR/OVER/SCALPED vs the current retail median across shops.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: list_niches provides valid niche options, and price_check uses those options to check prices. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: list_niches and price_check. The naming is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels quite thin for a service covering multiple niches. While it may be sufficient for a simple price checker, the limited tool count suggests a minimal surface area.
Within its stated purpose of checking prices for collectible niches, the server provides a complete workflow: list niches then check a price. No obvious gaps are present, though a tool to compare multiple items could be a minor addition.
List the collectible niches this price checker covers (TCG, LEGO, Funko, keyboards, vinyl, aquarium). Use first to pick a valid 'niche' value for price_check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states that the tool lists niches, implying a non-destructive, read-only query. The description is clear but could explicitly note that it does not modify any state or require authentication.
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 long, front-loaded with the action and examples. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and usage. It does not specify the return format (e.g., a JSON array), but the agent can reasonably infer that it returns a list of niche names. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing example niches and explaining the tool's purpose, meeting the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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 that the tool lists collectible niches covered by the price checker, with specific examples (TCG, LEGO, Funko, keyboards, vinyl, aquarium). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool price_check by explaining its role as a prerequisite for selecting a niche.
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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use first to pick a valid 'niche' value for price_check.' This provides clear context and usage order, though it could mention that it is a read-only operation with no side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a price for a collectible is FAIR / OVER / SCALPED vs the current retail median across the shops we poll. Returns the retail min/max/median, the number of shops carrying it, the price multiple, and a verdict. Use this to decide if a listing is overpriced before buying. niche must be one of: tcg (Pokémon & TCG), lego (LEGO sets), funko (Funko Pop), keebs (Mechanical keyboards), vinyl (Vinyl records), aqua (Aquarium livestock).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| niche | Yes | Niche key, e.g. 'tcg', 'lego', 'funko', 'keebs', 'vinyl', 'aqua'. | |
| price | No | Optional: the price you are seeing. If given, the verdict compares against it. | |
| query | Yes | Product name to look up, e.g. 'Charizard V' or 'LEGO 10307'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return values (retail min/max/median, shops count, price multiple, verdict). Omits potential data freshness or rate limits, but overall 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?
Two concise sentences plus a list of niches. No superfluous words. Information is front-loaded.
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, description adequately covers behavior and return values. Could detail exact field names but sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining 'price' parameter is optional and used for comparison, and lists all valid niche values.
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 checks a price against retail median and returns a verdict (FAIR/OVER/SCALPED) with supporting stats. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_niches by focusing on price evaluation.
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 says 'Use this to decide if a listing is overpriced before buying,' providing clear context. Does not specify when not to use or alternatives, but sibling is different enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_nichesprice_checkLive restock index per collectible niche + will-it-restock predictor (WAIT vs BUY-RESALE).
Check a shop page price now, keep a watch list, see history and target alerts. All data stays local.
Price comparison across partner retailers. Read-only, 90-day history, disclosed affiliate.
Swiss market prices for video games and consoles, with provenance. Read-only, OAuth 2.1.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
