app_detailsStore page detail (Steam Store API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| l | No | ||
| cc | No | ||
| appids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Store API returns appid keys with app detail objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, fully covering safety and non-mutating behavior. The description adds only the source (Steam Store API), which is minimal behavioral context but not contradictory. No additional caveats like rate limits or data scope are provided, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key phrase 'Store page detail' and the source. It is extremely concise with zero wasted words, earning a perfect score for efficiency.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple lookup tool. However, it lacks usage context, prerequisites, or parameter details, making it only adequately complete for a tool of this simplicity.
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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters (appids, l, cc). The schema examples provide some implicit meaning (e.g., 'l' as language, 'cc' as country code), but the description itself adds no semantic value beyond what the structured examples show, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving store page details from the Steam Store API, which distinguishes it from siblings like app_news or app_list. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'fetch', making it slightly less direct than ideal.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like app_list and app_news exist, but there is no mention of selection criteria, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.
Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.
Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.
At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.
For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.