Juegos que aun no han salido, con su fecha de lanzamiento y el precio de reserva sin y con tasas de pago (precio_base y precio_con_tasas) y su formato: cita los dos juntos, «X EUR (Y EUR con tasas)». Usalo cuando pregunten cuando sale un juego o que se puede reservar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Ventana en dias, 1-365 | |
| lang | No | Idioma del usuario para los enlaces: es, en, de, fr, it o pt. Por defecto en | |
| limit | No | Maximo 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / langAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Idioma del usuario para los enlaces: es, en, de, fr, it o pt. Por defecto en",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape and a required output convention ('cita los dos juntos, «X EUR (Y EUR con tasas)»'), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about default window/limit behavior, result ordering, or read-only/no-side-effect status, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence cleanly covers usage. The format instruction is dense but earns its place; overall it is appropriately sized for a definition that must carry annotation-level context itself.
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 three optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent most needs: the resource scope, the returned fields, a quoting convention, and a trigger condition. Missing only edge behavior such as default window, result caps, and any permission context.
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 100% — days, lang, and limit are each documented in the schema with valid ranges and defaults. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource ('juegos que aun no han salido') plus exactly what is returned (fecha de lanzamiento, precio_base, precio_con_tasas) and even the output quoting format. The 'not yet released' scope cleanly separates it from siblings like get_deals or get_best_price, which cover available/priced items.
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 when to use it: 'cuando pregunten cuando sale un juego o que se puede reservar', which maps directly to release-date and preorder questions. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., vs. get_deals), leaving that routing to inference.
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.