reusefulshop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at using a 'tracked market range' but does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, output shape, or limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and comparison basis immediately.

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 two-parameter tool, the purpose is stated adequately. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain what a 'judgment' returns or provide usage context, leaving clear gaps.

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%, documenting both q and price. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Specifies a clear verb (judge) and resource (asking price relative to tracked market range). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like get_worth or get_sold, but the function is distinct enough for an agent to identify.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The implied context is evaluating an asking price, but an agent gets no guidance on when to choose this over get_worth or get_sold.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one genuine trait: the data set may be young, warning the agent that returned history can be sparse or incomplete. It says nothing about what happens when no history exists, how far back the series goes, or the return shape, so it only partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the caveat parenthetically appended; nothing is wasted. Slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose adequately, but with no output schema it leaves the return structure and the empty-history case unexplained. The 'history may be young' caveat partly covers this gap.

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 there is exactly one parameter (q), so the schema already documents it. The description's phrase 'for an item' loosely maps to q but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific resource and granularity ('Tracked daily price history for an item'), which is concrete enough for an agent to know it returns a time series of prices. It does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named siblings get_sold or get_worth, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_worth, get_sold, or check_deal, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance is an implicit hint that data may be incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data provenance (operator's own eBay shop, real completed transactions) which tells the agent the data is authoritative and read-only in effect. It says nothing about result count, pagination, latency, or auth needs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by scope. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and where the data comes from, which is the key ambiguity. It could still say whether the result is a list or aggregate and how many sold records are returned.

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?

There is a single parameter, q, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The item'). The description adds no syntax, matching, or format guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 (sold prices for an item) and pins down scope precisely: the operator's own eBay shop, actual transactions rather than asking prices. This differentiates it from generic price-lookup data, though it never names or contrasts with the siblings get_worth, get_history, or check_deal.

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 phrase 'not asking prices' implies a contrast with asking-price tools such as get_worth, but the alternative is never named and no condition for choosing this tool over its three siblings is given. Usage must be inferred from the data-source hint alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the return shape (low/typical/high, confidence), the data source (tracked marketplace data), and caching economics. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, freshness/staleness of cached data, and error behavior for unknown items.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core output shape and ending with the cost note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the return fields (low/typical/high, confidence) and the data provenance. Missing only usage routing against the three siblings, which is otherwise complete for a single-param lookup.

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?

One parameter ('q') at 100% schema description coverage with a concrete example, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 verb+resource: returns a second-hand price estimate (low/typical/high + confidence) for an item. The word 'Current' implicitly contrasts with the get_history sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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 notes cached lookups are free, which is a mild cost consideration, but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternatives (check_deal, get_history, get_sold). An agent must infer that this is the 'current price' tool versus the history or sold-data siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.