幫使用者對彩券：輸入遊戲與號碼，回傳對中幾個、獎項、每注獎金與兌獎期限。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"game": "<game>",
"numbers": "<numbers>"
},
"name": "check_lottery"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | ||
| period | No | ||
| second | No | 威力彩第二區（1–8） | |
| numbers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the output shape (matched count, prize, per-bet payout, redemption deadline), which is real behavioral information. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what a missing period defaults to, or how errors (e.g. invalid numbers) are handled.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and then lists the four return values. No filler, no redundancy.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output side well but leaves input semantics (period, second) and read-only behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps against the module's complexity.
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 only 25% (only 'second' is documented). The description mentions only game and numbers, leaving 'period' (drawing period) and 'second' (威力彩 second zone) largely unexplained in prose, so it does not compensate for the sparse 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('對彩券' / check lottery) and even enumerates the return payload (matched count, prize tier, payout, redemption deadline). It is clearly a computation over a user's own numbers, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling get_lottery_results, leaving the agent to infer the split.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the natural alternative, get_lottery_results. The only usage signal is the phrase '輸入遊戲與號碼', which implies the caller supplies their own ticket, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.
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.