fetchsearch가 반환한 BoxTier 공개 농구 매칭방 ID 하나의 현재 상세 조건을 조회한다. 검색 결과를 추천하거나 참가 링크를 안내하기 전에 사용한다. 임의의 비공개 방이나 종료된 방 조회에는 사용하지 않는다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | search 결과의 공개 매칭방 ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotence profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping about current conditions and the exclusion of private/ended rooms, but does not add deeper behavioral detail such as response shape or behavior on invalid IDs; with strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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 three short, purposeful sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and when not to use it. There is no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded.
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-only, idempotent operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies where the ID comes from, when to call the tool, and what kind of data is returned (current detailed conditions). The exclusions prevent misuse, and no critical invocation detail is missing.
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 the single required parameter already has a clear description ('search 결과의 공개 매칭방 ID'). The tool description reinforces that the ID must come from search, but it does not add 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the current detailed conditions of a single public basketball matching room ID returned by search. It is clearly distinguished from siblings by anchoring to search results and explicitly excluding arbitrary, private, or ended rooms.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool (before recommending search results or guiding participation links) and gives concrete negative guidance (do not use for arbitrary private or ended rooms). This gives an agent actionable selection criteria without needing to infer context.
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 has a clearly distinct job: searching, fetching one match detail, checking account state, listing personal match records, and generating the receipt. Even though search and fetch are related, their boundary—list vs. detail-by-id—is explicit and unlikely to cause selection errors.
Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (create_basketball_receipt, get_my_boxtier_account, list_my_match_records), but 'search' and especially the generic 'fetch' deviate by having no object or domain qualifier. The set is still readable, but it is not a consistent naming convention.
Five tools form a well-rim scope for the server's dual purpose of discovering/matching rooms and generating receipts from user or match data. There are no redundant or decorative tools, and each tool occupies a necessary step in the intended workflows.
The main flows are covered: login/limit check → list personal matches or search rooms → receipt creation. The only notable gap is the lack of a way to retrieve or manage previously generated receipts, but users can still be re-run receipt generation from existing match records, so workaround exists.