get_tool_cardReturn one Tool Card and its Rating Result by stable tool_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_id | Yes | Stable Agent Radar tool identifier, usually obtained from search_tools results. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns one Tool Card and Rating Result, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. Since annotations carry the burden, the description adds minimal value.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every part 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?
Given the existence of an output schema, clear annotations, and full schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool. It lacks mention of error conditions or rate limits, but these are not critical for such a tool.
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 only parameter (tool_id) is well-described in the schema. The description's mention of 'stable tool_id' reinforces the schema but does not add new meaning. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Return', resource 'Tool Card and its Rating Result', and specifies the key identifier 'by stable tool_id'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_tools (search), recommend_tools (recommendation), and explain_rating (explanation) by focusing on fetching a single card by ID.
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 mentions 'usually obtained from search_tools results', implying a usage flow from search to card retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like recommend_tools or explain_rating. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.
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 targets a distinct operation: explain_rating for detailed rating breakdown, get_tool_card for full card retrieval, recommend_tools for task-based suggestions, and search_tools for querying the database. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (explain_rating, get_tool_card, recommend_tools, search_tools) using snake_case, making the set predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to cover core operations (search, retrieve details, explain ratings, recommend) without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the primary needs of a tool registry: searching, retrieving individual cards, explaining ratings, and getting recommendations. There are no obvious gaps given the stated purpose.