slang_lookupResolve a Chinese/Japanese/English community nickname (e.g. "鬼皮", "老喷", "Zard") to the actual card(s): official names, set, number, card_id. 中文用户: 把圈内简称(鬼皮/老喷/大月…)解析成具体是哪张卡。Up to 10 cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | The nickname / slang term. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| term | No | ||
| cards | No | ||
| card_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / characterAdded value: +{
+ "description": "featured Pokémon (EN species name)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / dex_noAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / finish_tiersAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / gen_codeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / rarityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "bilingual rarity bucket label",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / rarity_displayAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "cjk": {
+ "description": "JP-style code (SR/RR/…)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "en": {
+ "description": "official EN star-system name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / rarity_tierAdded value: +{
+ "description": "machine rarity tier key (double_rare/ultra_rare/…)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / set_nameAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / variantAdded value: +{
+ "description": "variant slot (master_ball/poke_ball/…); absent for normal",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / variant_kindAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating the result limit ('Up to 10 cards') and the multilingual scope. There is no contradiction with the 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 short, front-loaded, and to the point. It conveys purpose, supported languages, output fields, and cardinality in a compact form without repeating schema details.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers input style, output contents, language coverage, and the 10-card limit. There is no meaningful gap for an agent trying to decide when to use this 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 coverage is 100% for the single term parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of valid inputs (鬼皮, 老喷, Zard) and clarifies the term may be a Chinese/Japanese/English community nickname, which is meaningful additional semantic guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: resolving a Chinese/Japanese/English community nickname to actual cards, and lists the resulting fields (official names, set, number, card_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_card.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a community nickname or slang term that needs mapping to a real card. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_card for official-name queries, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.