steamwebapi

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: the API key is taken from the MCP Authorization or X-Api-Key header, and it refuses unsafe methods and excluded endpoint categories. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand constraints.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and authentication, the second states exclusions. No filler, front-loaded with the core function.

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 generic endpoint caller, the description covers purpose, auth mechanism, and forbidden methods/endpoints. With full schema parameter documentation and safe-operation annotations, this is complete enough. It doesn't specify return format, but that is likely self-evident and not required given no output schema.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., path examples, timeout range, parameters object, maxResponseBytes truncation). The description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Executes a documented steamwebapi GET endpoint' with the caller's API key. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_concept, list_games) by being a generic read-only GET caller, and the name/title reinforce this role.

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 provides clear context: use for GET endpoints, pass API key via headers, and it explicitly refuses POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE plus Proxy, Steam Guard and Tradeoffer endpoints. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., 'use this for endpoints without a dedicated tool'), but the restrictions and generic nature imply when it should be chosen.

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 burden. It discloses that the explanation is built from curated domain knowledge, indicating a static knowledge base rather than a live API call. This adds valuable context, even though it does not cover error handling or response formatting.

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 well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. It contains no redundant phrasing and 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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the scope of the knowledge, and the platform-specific nature. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% because the sole parameter 'term' has a detailed description with examples. The tool description further adds the domain scope (identifiers, CS2 mechanics, pricing fields, inventory flags), which helps users understand what terms are valid, going slightly beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns a detailed explanation for a Steam/steamwebapi concept, and specifically lists categories (identifiers, CS2 mechanics, pricing fields, inventory flags). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_concepts (which lists concepts) and search_endpoints (which searches endpoints).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need a detailed explanation of a specific concept. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose and sibling names imply the appropriate usage scenario.

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, but the description discloses the return content in detail, indicating a read-only lookup with no side effects. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a straightforward retrieval of an OpenAPI object, the transparency is adequate.

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 concise sentences: the first states what is returned, the second specifies when to use it. No wasted words; the most important information 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?

The description lists the components of the returned OpenAPI object and provides usage context relative to search_endpoints. The schema covers parameters. Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of return contents helps complete the picture, though it could mention error cases.

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 coverage is 100%, with both path and method having descriptive comments including an example path and default method. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the full OpenAPI operation object for a given path, listing specific contents (parameters, request body, response schemas, examples, tags). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like search_endpoints and list_endpoints.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool after search_endpoints to drill into a specific endpoint, providing clear contextual usage and implying an alternative tool for the search step. This is strong guidance.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating it provides 'public' pricing data and explicitly disclaims checkout/account actions, which goes beyond the annotation baseline. No contradiction.

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, succinct, and front-loaded with the primary output. Every clause contributes meaning: the first states the main return content, the second clarifies boundaries. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the main return elements (pricing plans, rate limits, API-key location, quota guidance, recommended plan), which is reasonably comprehensive for the tool's purpose. It misses details like return format or how recommendation is computed, but the complexity is moderate and the stated scope is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minor context by mentioning 'requested use case' and 'quota guidance', which align with useCase and expectedRequestsPerDay, but it does not provide any syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Returns public steamwebapi pricing plans, per-endpoint rate limits, API-key location, quota guidance and a recommended plan' — a specific verb+resource combination. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does not perform checkout or account actions, and no other pricing tool exists among siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'for the requested use case') and lists example use cases. It also states exclusions ('Does not perform checkout or account actions'), which guides against misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded actions.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the full scope ('every curated concept'), the optional filter by category, and the discovery-oriented behavior. It does not detail return structure, pagination, or side effects, but for a simple list tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter schema and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers the purpose, scope, and filter sufficiently. It could further describe the exact return shape, but for a concept discovery list the phrase 'lists every curated concept' and 'domain explanations' gives the agent enough context to select and invoke it.

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%; the one parameter 'category' is already well-documented with an enum and description. The tool description only says 'optionally filtered by category,' which adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Lists') and resource ('every curated concept exposed by get_concept'), while distinguishing it from the sibling get_concept by framing this as the discovery-level counterpart. The optional category filter is also mentioned, giving a precise scope.

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 says 'Use to discover what domain explanations are available,' which gives a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the tie to get_concept and the discovery purpose is enough context.

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 provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by specifying the output content (path, method, summary) and the optional tag filter. Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or grouping details, the verb 'Lists' implies a non-mutating operation and the schema supplements grouping info.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output, and the second sentence gives a practical use case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what is returned and when to use it. It doesn't elaborate on grouping when no tag is provided, but that detail is present in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'tag' has a detailed description already. The tool description only mentions 'optionally filtered by tag', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 lists all steamwebapi.com endpoints with their path, method, and summary, optionally filtered by tag. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like get_endpoint (single endpoint) and search_endpoints (search) by emphasizing broad enumeration.

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 'Useful for quickly enumerating what is available' provides clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is well understood relative to sibling tools.

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 states the output contains a list with specific fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or any potential requirements, leaving minor gaps for a simple list tool.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and includes all essential details: scope, fields, and the purpose of the game= 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states the full set ('every game'), specifies the returned fields, and even explains the practical use. It could mention output format, but the description covers the key context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any. The description focuses entirely on the output, which is appropriate and adds value by listing the exact fields returned.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource: 'every game supported by steamwebapi.com'. It further details the returned fields (slug, name, Steam appId, game= value), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_concepts and list_markets.

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 implicitly provides usage context by explaining that the tool returns 'the value to pass as `game=` in API queries', so an agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion with sibling listing tools.

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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns an exhaustive list ('every') and includes the specific output fields (domain and games covered). This implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is adequate for a list tool, though it does not mention potential auth or rate limits.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then specifies the output. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description covers the core behavior: what is listed and what fields are returned. It could mention whether pagination is involved, but for a list of markets this is likely unnecessary. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional parameter 'game' is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage 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 uses a clear verb 'Lists' and a specific resource 'third-party marketplace covered by the steamwebapi.com market price endpoints'. It also specifies what is returned (domain and games they cover), fully distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_endpoints or list_games.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to obtain all third-party marketplaces supported by the market price endpoints. Although it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X', the resource and scope are unambiguous enough to guide selection among similar list tools.

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 implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or return format. It does add useful context about returning bundled endpoints, but lacks depth about behavior beyond the obvious 'list' semantics.

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: the first clearly states the action and resource, the second provides a relevant alternative. Every word earns its place, no redundant information.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (packages and bundled endpoints) and points to get_pricing for related needs. It could explicitly note the read-only nature, but that is implicitly clear from the name and minimal 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything vacuously. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters.

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's function: listing steamwebapi.com product packages and the endpoints each bundles. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints, which likely lists endpoints directly.

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 directs users to use get_pricing for paid plans, request quotas, and upgrade guidance, which provides clear alternatives to this tool. This tells agents when not to use list_products and points them to the appropriate sibling.

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 discloses fuzzy matching, ranked results, and return fields, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or limitations, but 'search' implies a safe read operation and the provided details are adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format with the hit fields. It also conveys search scope and examples of concepts. The only minor gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as a fuzzy text search across all steamwebapi.com OpenAPI endpoints and Steam domain concepts, with specific return fields (path, method, tag, summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints and get_concept.

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 establishes clear context: use this to find endpoints or concepts via free-text search, rather than enumerating all (list_endpoints) or retrieving a specific one (get_endpoint). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the implied usage is clear.

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