Juegos que aun no han salido, con su fecha de lanzamiento y el precio de reserva. Usalo cuando pregunten cuando sale un juego o que se puede reservar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Ventana en dias, 1-365 | |
| limit | No | Maximo 50 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the output domain (unreleased games, release date, preorder price) but does not disclose behavior when optional parameters are omitted, ordering, pagination, or the exact return shape.
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 short sentences, with the core result set front-loaded and usage guidance after. There is no filler or repetition.
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 listing tool this is mostly adequate: it explains what is returned and when to use it. However, no annotations or output schema exist, and it leaves open defaults for optional parameters and whether the result is a flat list or grouped data.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions ('Ventana en dias, 1-365' and 'Maximo 50'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how days or limit affect the result.
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 returns unreleased games with their release date and preorder price, which is a specific result set. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_deals and search_game by focusing on upcoming releases.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when someone asks when a game comes out or what can be preordered. It does not name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route the request.
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.
