Preview what buying would cost without executing (Read-only. Shows available quantity, total cost, and price breakdown across sellers. Accepts item_id or item name (e.g. 'Iron Ore').)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ID of the item to estimate buying | |
| quantity | Yes | Number of items to estimate buying | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds useful context about output: 'Shows available quantity, total cost, and price breakdown across sellers.' It also clarifies that the tool accepts item names, which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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 with a parenthetical example, front-loading the primary purpose and including key details without wasted words.
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 has no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains return contents (available quantity, total cost, price breakdown). It lacks details on error cases or edge conditions, but for a read-only estimate tool, the provided information is adequate.
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 descriptions cover all parameters, but the description enriches the meaning of 'item_id' by noting it can accept an item name (e.g., 'Iron Ore') in addition to an ID. This adds value beyond the schema's 'ID of the item' definition.
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: 'Preview what buying would cost without executing,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'buy' tool by emphasizing it does not execute the purchase.
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 usage scenarios by saying 'without executing' and 'Read-only,' indicating it's for pre-purchase cost assessment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'buy' or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guideline clarity.
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 distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.
The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.
With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.
The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.
