identify_cardParse a free-text card description or eBay-style listing title (e.g. "1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr #1 PSA 10") and return the best database matches with a confidence note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Free-text card description or listing title |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states it 'returns best database matches with confidence note', indicating a read-only behavior. But does not explicitly declare safety traits (e.g., no side effects, auth needs). Given lack of annotations, the description is somewhat transparent but leaves room for uncertainty.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input expectations and output shape. Could mention if authentication or rate limits apply, but not critical for basic use.
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% with a brief description. The tool description adds value by specifying the format of acceptable input (e.g., '1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr #1 PSA 10') and clarifying the output includes a 'confidence note', which goes beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'free-text card description or eBay-style listing title', and specifies the output: 'return the best database matches with a confidence note'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_cards' which likely does broader searching.
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?
Description implies usage: parsing a free-text description to identify a card, with an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'get_card' or 'search_cards'. Still, purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer correct 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.
All seven tools have clearly distinct purposes: browse for hierarchy navigation, card_of_the_day for a daily feature, find_variants for parallel cards, get_card for single card detail, get_set_checklist for set checklists, identify_card for free-text parsing, and search_cards for full-text search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (browse, find_variants, get_card, get_set_checklist, identify_card, search_cards). The exception is card_of_the_day, which is a noun phrase, but it is a singular feature and does not disrupt overall consistency significantly.
With seven tools, the server is well-scoped for a sports card database. Each tool serves a distinct query need: navigation, search, identification, detail retrieval, and variant discovery. The count is neither too few nor too many.
The tool set covers the core read-only operations needed for a card database: browsing, searching, identifying, getting details, and listing sets. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking cross-set comparison or advanced filtering by product, but the overall surface is comprehensive for typical use.