search_cardsSearch Pokémon TCG (and other trading card games) cards by name in the TCGdex card database. Returns brief matches (id, localId, name, image thumbnail). Use get_card with an id for full card details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Card name or partial name to search for, e.g. "pikachu". Omit to list cards. | |
| limit | No | Max cards to return (default 30, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns brief matches with a thumbnail, and searches by name. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional transparency about the output format.
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 two sentences, no unnecessary words. It starts with the action and immediately follows with the result and next steps. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool has only 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and simple semantics, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and how to get full details via a sibling tool. It is complete for its complexity.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters (`name` and `limit`) with examples. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, simply stating 'search by name'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 states the action (search), resource (Pokémon TCG and other trading card game cards by name in the TCGdex database), and what is returned (brief matches with id, localId, name, image thumbnail). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `get_card` by directing users to use that for full details. The title 'Search Cards' aligns well.
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 indicates when to use this tool (to search cards by name) and explicitly recommends using `get_card` for full details with an ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any prerequisites or limitations, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.
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.
The four card tools are distinct, but the majority of the server is a Pipeworx/prediction-market platform with heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical twin of ask_pipeworx. The six Polymarket tools and the ai_visibility/scan_competitor pair also have fuzzy boundaries that would make tool selection error-prone.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is highly inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), some are noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The ask_pipeworx variants share a name but differ only by suffix, which is not a clear action-oriented pattern.
35 tools is squarely in the 'too many' territory, and the bloat is worse because the server is named Tcgdex while only 4 of 35 tools actually relate to trading cards. The remaining 31 tools form a sprawling multi-domain platform that mixes data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.
For the TCGdex card surface, the read-only workflows are covered well: search_cards leads to get_card, and list_sets leads to get_set, with no obvious dead ends. For the broader Pipeworx functionality, the set includes discovery, query, grounding, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, so the main workflows are supported—though the overall scope is sprawling rather than focused.