Search Steam game platform for video games by title or keyword. Returns game name, price in USD, average user rating, review count, release date, and Steam store page URL. Use for game discovery, price monitoring, or review research before purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Game title or genre search (e.g. 'Elden Ring', 'strategy games', 'indie puzzle') | |
| max_results | No | Number of game results to return (default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns specific fields, which is useful but not exhaustive behavioral detail. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or authentication, but given the annotations, the description is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first explains function and output, the second suggests use cases. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information: what it does, what it returns, and typical use cases. It lacks explicit return structure details, but for a list-based search tool, this is acceptable.
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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Per baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'Steam game platform for video games'. It lists the returned fields (name, price, rating, etc.) and provides use cases. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_devto and search_events which target different platforms.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: game discovery, price monitoring, review research. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the distinct resource (Steam games) and sibling tool names imply that this tool is for Steam-specific searches, leaving little ambiguity.
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 targets a distinct content platform (Steam games, dev.to articles, Eventbrite events, podcasts) with no overlapping functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Three tools use 'search_' prefix while one uses 'get_', which is a minor inconsistency. However, all follow a verb_noun pattern and are clear and predictable.
With 4 tools covering diverse content discovery needs, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for a focused social/content server.
The tools cover major content types (games, articles, events, podcasts) but lack common ones like social media posts or videos, leaving moderate gaps for a full social/content scope.