card_popGraded population for one card: PSA population by grade (total / 10 / 9 / 8), CCIC population (total / 10 / 9.5 / 9), PSA gem rate and scarcity tier when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | Card id from search_card / slang_lookup. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| psa | No | ||
| ccic | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| card_id | No | ||
| gem_rate | No | ||
| gem_rate_band | No | ||
| scarcity_tier | No |
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 indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact output (PSA/CCIC populations, gem rate, scarcity tier), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Graded population for one card') and efficiently lists the specific data points. 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 simple, single-parameter tool with an output schema (mentioned in context), the description sufficiently covers the key output fields. It does not need to explain return values further, and the lack of error handling notes is acceptable.
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 the parameter description already specifying where to get the card_id. The tool description adds no further parameter context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 provides graded population data for one card, including specific grade breakdowns for PSA and CCIC, gem rate, and scarcity tier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like card_price and get_market_brief, which focus on different aspects.
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?
While not explicitly stating when to use or avoid this tool, the description implies it is for population data on a specific card. The sibling list and the tool name help differentiate, but explicit comparative guidance would boost clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.