Fetch a ChangeGamer resource by slug. Free resources return full metadata and Markdown body. Premium resources require a valid api_key; without one a payment-required object is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Resource slug (e.g. "getting-started") | |
| api_key | No | Access key for premium resources |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free resources return full metadata and Markdown body, premium resources require a valid api_key, and without it a payment-required object is returned. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits error handling and response structure details.
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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and each sentence is essential.
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 conditional behavior and no output schema, the description adequately explains the two cases (free/premium). It doesn't include error scenarios or explicitly reference sibling tools, but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavior context for the api_key parameter, explaining its role and consequences of omission, which is valuable beyond the schema's simple description.
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 tool fetches a ChangeGamer resource by slug, specifying the verb 'Fetch' and the resource. It distinguishes between free and premium resources, setting it apart from sibling tools like list_resources and search_resources which operate differently.
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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a slug) and provides context for free vs premium resources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, relying on the distinct slug parameter for differentiation.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type: articles, resources, corpus, stats, and articles. The main ambiguity is the access/pricing/payment cluster (`check_access`, `get_access_info`, `get_pricing`, `get_payment_info`), which agents could confuse despite distinct descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern, using `get_*`, `list_*`, and `search_*` prefixes. The naming stays readable and predictable even with broader tools like `search` and `search_resources`.
14 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, and each major retrieval goal has a dedicated tool. It is slightly heavy because the access/pricing/payment information could arguably be consolidated, but it is not bloated.
The server covers discovery, listing, searching, fetching, corpus ingestion, editorial articles, stats, and access/pricing verification. As a read-only content/access server, full CRUD is not expected, though there is no direct category-based batch filter beyond a general search.