Credits and experience by battle mode
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": {
"region": "<region>"
},
"name": "modes_economy"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | Game server region. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a read-only static dataset, whether the results are global or per-player, whether data is cached or live, or what the response contains. Only the implicit 'by battle mode' grouping hints at the shape of the result.
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?
At six words there is no padding and nothing wasted, but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency — the fragment lacks a verb and is not front-loaded with any actionable framing.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a bare noun-phrase description, an agent has no idea what the response looks like or what 'modes' refers to (game modes? battle types?). For a simple one-parameter lookup this should be easy to complete, and it is not.
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 single parameter 'region' is fully documented in the schema with an enum of eu/na/asia and the note 'Game server region.', so coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about how region affects the returned economy figures.
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 fragment 'Credits and experience by battle mode' identifies the resource (economy figures keyed by battle mode) but uses no verb and no scope qualifier, so it is unclear whether this returns a static reference table of all modes or something player-specific. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as tanks_economics or players_by_nickname_battles_economy.
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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of what question this answers, no exclusion pointing to tanks_economics or players_by_nickname_battles_economy, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.
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.