Skip to main content
Glama

bo3_economy_baseline

Read-only

Returns BO3.gg's site-wide CS2 round win rate for every pairing of buy levels (-1 full eco, 0 semi-eco, 1 half buy, 2 full buy; the opposing level is null when unknown) with rounds, wins and win rate. Takes no parameters. Use it as the baseline to compare a team's economy view from bo3_team_stats.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bo3_economy_baseline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the returned fields (rounds, wins, win rate) and the null-handling rule for unknown opposing buy levels, which the agent needs to interpret results. It does not discuss data recency or caching, a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the level legend and the when-to-use sentence. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is partly covered, yet the description still supplies the domain legend for buy levels and the null rule, plus the comparison intent. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description confirms 'Takes no parameters.' It additionally decodes the buy-level values (-1/0/1/2 and null), which are data values rather than params but help the agent interpret the response.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('BO3.gg's site-wide CS2 round win rate for every pairing of buy levels') with the exact fields returned. It is immediately distinguishable from the team-scoped sibling without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the intended use ('use it as the baseline to compare a team's economy view') and the alternative it pairs with ('from bo3_team_stats'). The agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool versus the sibling.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.