POKEKA — Pokémon Card Prices

Recent sales

recent_sales

Most recent verified sales for one card (up to 10): date, grading company + grade, price in USD, marketplace name. Sales span US, Japan-domestic and Chinese marketplaces — each sale is a real completed transaction, not a listing. Calls record usage and query metadata within POKEKA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card_id`	Yes	Card id from search_card / slang_lookup.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`sales`	No
`card_id`	No
`fx_as_of`	No
`sale_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / sales / items / properties / finish / description

Previous value: -"Print finish of the card sold (e.g. 1st_edition, reverse_holo, shadowless). Absent = no finish recorded for that sale."New value: +"Print finish of the card sold (1st_edition, shadowless, reverse_holo, no_symbol, red_cheeks, yellow_cheeks). Combinations are joined with \"+\" (e.g. 1st_edition+red_cheeks). Absent = no finish recorded for that sale."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / sales / items / properties / finish

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Print finish of the card sold (e.g. 1st_edition, reverse_holo, shadowless). Absent = no finish recorded for that sale.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / fx_as_of
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / sales / items / properties / price_cny
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / sales / items / properties / price_jpy
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds valuable transparency by clarifying that results are verified completed transactions, spanning specific marketplaces (US, Japan-domestic, Chinese), and that calls record usage and query metadata. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and cardinality, then supporting details about market coverage and data authenticity. The final clause about usage metadata is relevant to behavioral transparency and does not feel like padding. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete: it gives the result count cap, the fields returned, the market provenance, and the key distinction from listings. There are no complex prerequisites or exclusions that are left unexplained, and the output schema covers the return structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, card_id, is documented in the schema as 'Card id from search_card / slang_lookup.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that it targets one card. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pairing ('Most recent verified sales for one card'), with precise scope (up to 10), and enumerates the returned fields. It also clearly distinguishes this from listings and from broader market tools by saying 'each sale is a real completed transaction, not a listing,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like card_price or market_movers.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides useful context: it is for a single card and returns verified completed sales, not listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools nor state when to prefer this over card_price_history or get_market_brief. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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

All POKEKA — Pokémon Card Prices tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?