Serie mensual del historico de precios de un juego. Usalo cuando pregunten si ha estado mas barato o como ha evolucionado el precio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | id numerico o slug | |
| months | No | Meses hacia atras, 1-60 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the data is monthly and historical, but does not disclose read-only nature, return shape, error behavior, or coverage limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotations.
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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence and the when-to-use is second.
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?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool: purpose, trigger and parameter constraints are covered. However, without an output schema, it only vaguely describes the return as a monthly series, and does not state what fields appear in the response or what happens when months is omitted.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('id numerico o slug', 'Meses hacia atras, 1-60'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond confirming 'mensual' aligns with 'months' semantics.
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 the tool provides a monthly series of a game's price history and gives concrete use cases ('si ha estado mas barato o como ha evolucionado el precio'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_best_price or get_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?
Explicitly instructs to use when users ask if a game has been cheaper or how its price evolved. Does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but this is clear, actionable context.
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 addresses a distinct user need: current best price for a specific game, available deals, historical price trends, upcoming releases, and game search/resolution. There is minimal overlap, and the descriptions make it clear when to use each one.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_best_price, get_deals, get_price_history, get_upcoming, and search_game. The consistent structure makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
With five tools, the server is well-scoped for game pricing and deals. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full game price workflow: search for a game, check current best price, see active deals, view historical prices, and look up upcoming releases. No significant gaps are apparent for a price-comparison focused server.
