Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@PokeAPI MCP Server What are the base stats of Pikachu?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Empower your AI with Pokédex powers! Fetch and explore Pokémon data seamlessly via PokeAPI.
Server: io.github.Asthanaji05/pokeapi-mcp-server
npm package: pokeapi-mcp-server
This project provides a Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server that enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to make tool calls for Pokémon-related data. It integrates with the PokeAPI to offer access to 47 different Pokémon-related endpoints.
The PokeAPI MCP Server acts as a bridge, allowing AI assistants to fetch and utilize comprehensive Pokémon data directly from the PokeAPI. This facilitates the development of intelligent applications that require accurate and up-to-date information about Pokémon, moves, items, game mechanics, and more.
Related MCP server: Pokémon MCP Server
The server provides 47 Pokémon-related tools, covering a wide range of data:
Pokémon Data: getPokemonByName, getPokemonSpeciesByName, getPokemonFormByName, getPokemonColorByName, getPokemonHabitatByName, getPokemonShapeByName.
Moves: getMoveByName, getMoveCategoryByName, getMoveDamageClassByName, getMoveAilmentByName, getMoveBattleStyleByName, getMoveLearnMethodByName, getMoveTargetByName.
Items: getItemByName, getItemCategoryByName, getItemAttributeByName, getItemFlingEffectByName, getItemPocketByName.
Game Mechanics: getTypeByName, getStatByName, getAbilityByName, getGrowthRateByName, getNatureByName, getEggGroupByName, getGenerationByName, getVersionByName, getVersionGroupByName, getPokedexByName, getLanguageByName.
Encounters: getLocationByName, getLocationAreaByName, getEncounterMethodByName, getEncounterConditionByName, getEncounterConditionValueByName.
Berries: getBerryByName, getBerryFirmnessByName, getBerryFlavorByName.
Contests: getContestTypeByName, getContestEffectById, getSuperContestEffectById.
Evolution: getEvolutionChainById, getEvolutionTriggerByName.
Other: getCharacteristicById, getMachineById, getPalParkAreaByName, getPokeathlonStatByName, getRegionByName.
npm install -g pokeapi-mcp-serverAfter installation, add the server to your MCP client configuration:
Add to Claude>claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"pokemon-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"pokeapi-mcp-server@1.4.0"
]
}
}
}Add to .cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"pokemon-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"pokeapi-mcp-server@1.4.0"
]
}
}
}
Or if installed globally:
{
"mcpServers": {
"pokemon-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"pokeapi-mcp-server@1.4.0"
]
}
}
}
Add to .gemini/settings.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"pokemon-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"--yes",
"pokeapi-mcp-server@1.4.0"
],
"transport": "stdio",
"trust": true,
"env": {
"MCP_HTTP_SERVER_URL": "https://pokemon-mcp-server-vs8m.onrender.com"
}
}
}
}Note: The
envsection ensures the MCP server connects to the correct HTTP server. The remote server athttps://pokemon-mcp-server-vs8m.onrender.comis available by default. If you're running a local HTTP server on port 3000, change the URL tohttp://localhost:3000. Restart Cursor IDE or Gemini CLI after updating the configuration to load the MCP server.
Made with ❤️ by Asthanaji05
Get information about an ability by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the ability. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Get information'. It does not confirm the operation is read-only, idempotent, or free from side effects. For a simple lookup, this is 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It could mention the type of information returned (e.g., effects, stats), but overall it is adequate given the low complexity.
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 a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Get information' and resource 'ability', distinguishing it from sibling tools which target different entities like berries or pokemon. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPokemonByName or getMoveByName. The description does not include scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a berry by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the berry. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, it lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as returned data format, authentication needs, or rate limits. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is minimally adequate.
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 is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but vague. It does not specify what kind of berry information is returned (e.g., stats, flavor, firmness) or provide a return type hint, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.
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?
There is only one parameter 'name' with schema description 'The name of the berry.' The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the parameter semantics are acceptable at baseline.
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 retrieves information about a berry using its name. However, it does not differentiate from the many similar 'get*ByName' sibling tools, which also fetch data by name for different entities.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getBerryFlavorByName' or 'getBerryFirmnessByName', nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a berry firmness by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the berry firmness. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation, which is consistent with naming. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 efficiently communicates the tool's action and target. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous 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?
Given the simplicity of one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by hinting at what information is returned. It does not explain the response structure.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it gets info by name. Baseline score 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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get information' and the resource 'berry firmness', differentiating it from sibling tools which target other entities like abilities or berries. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when data by ID is needed). It only states it gets by name, but does not explain conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a berry flavor by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the berry flavor. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Get information') but omits details like error handling, permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal but functional context. However, it lacks behavioral details and guidance on expected output or error cases, which are important for a complete understanding.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the schema already defines the 'name' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by its name', which aligns with but does not enhance the schema. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool gets information about a berry flavor by name, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that target different resources.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a characteristic by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the characteristic. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information,' which implies a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The agent must infer that this is a safe query, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.
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 of 8 words, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is maximally concise with no redundant information, earning its place for a simple lookup tool.
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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it does not explain the structure of the return value or any pagination/error behavior. For a tool with no output schema, some indication of what 'information' is returned would improve completeness. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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% (the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The ID of the characteristic'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance understanding.
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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('characteristic'), and specifies the lookup method ('by its ID'). It is unambiguous, though 'information' is vague and does not distinguish from other tools beyond the ID parameter. A more specific description of what information is returned would improve clarity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention sibling tools. Given the large set of sibling tools with similar lookup patterns, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a contest effect by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the contest effect. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or return behavior. The lack of detail limits agent understanding of the tool's safety and constraints.
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 concise at one sentence, front-loading the action and resource. No redundant information. However, it is very brief, which limits context but does not waste words.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what a contest effect is, how the ID is used, or what 'information' the response contains. A bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness.
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 'id' described as 'The ID of the contest effect.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?
The description clearly states the action ('get information') and the specific resource ('contest effect') by its ID, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getContestTypeByName' and 'getSuperContestEffectById' through the resource and lookup method.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getContestTypeByName or getSuperContestEffectById). There are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or context indicators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a contest type by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the contest type. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not mention any limitations, error conditions (e.g., if name not found), or return format. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
A single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and how to use it.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the key parameter. A minor gap: it does not hint at the return structure, but this is acceptable for such a straightforward operation.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus meets the baseline but does not enrich 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 action ('Get information') and resource ('contest type'), with the retrieval method ('by its name'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools, which query other Pokemon resource types like Ability or Berry.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the sibling tools cover distinct resource types, so confusion is unlikely. The description lacks context like 'Use for fetching contest type details for contests or super contests.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an egg group by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the egg group. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic 'Get information'. It does not specify side effects, permissions, or return format, leaving the agent with incomplete transparency.
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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word 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?
For a simple lookup tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or details on return values, completeness is moderate.
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% for the single parameter 'name'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (egg group), and the lookup method (by name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the unique resource.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The context is implied by the resource name, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an encounter condition by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the encounter condition. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get information' without specifying what information is returned (e.g., full object, fields) or if the operation is read-only. The minimal description does not compensate for missing 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative but is concise.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at return format or content. It does not. For a simple tool, this might suffice, but the lack of information about the response makes it incomplete.
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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (the parameter 'name' is described as 'The name of the encounter condition'). Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('information about an encounter condition') and specifies lookup by name. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like getEncounterConditionValueByName, though the name itself provides some distinction.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives such as getEncounterConditionValueByName or other lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an encounter condition value by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the encounter condition value. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get information', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or other traits. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 a single short sentence, concise and front-loaded, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains the input but does not hint at the response format or confirm it's a read operation, leaving some gaps.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter 'name', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about an encounter condition value by name, distinguishing it from siblings by the specific resource. However, it does not specify what 'information' includes, leaving some ambiguity.
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 implies usage when you have the name of an encounter condition value, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an encounter method by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the encounter method. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not mention error handling, return format, or whether the method is case-sensitive. The agent has limited insight into tool behavior beyond 'get information'.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the nature of encounter methods or the response structure, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The name of the encounter method.' Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about an encounter method by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the resource type.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getEncounterConditionByName or getPokemonByName. The agent is left to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an evolution chain by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the evolution chain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'get information' without detailing error handling, auth needs, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the response content, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 action ('get'), the resource ('evolution chain'), and the method ('by its ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which primarily fetch by name, not 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (if you have an ID, use this), but no when-not or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an evolution trigger by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the evolution trigger. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get information,' implying a read operation but omits details like error handling, data source, or rate limits.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient with no wasted words.
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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without behavioral or return value details, completeness is limited.
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 parameter 'name' is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 action (Get information) and resource (evolution trigger) with the method (by name). However, it does not differentiate from the many other 'get...ByName' sibling tools, missing specificity about what information is returned.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 47 sibling tools, explicit context or exclusions would help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a generation by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the generation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning read-only, side effects, permissions, or output behavior.
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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal and lacks context about what constitutes a generation or what the output contains.
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% and the parameter has a description. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action ('get information') and the resource ('a generation by its name'). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's purpose from other tools, though 'information' is vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many similar get*ByName tools, context or selection criteria are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a growth rate by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the growth rate. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without disclosing any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return value structure. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 key information. It is appropriately concise with no unnecessary words, but could potentially include more detail without harming brevity.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the type of information returned, making it incomplete for an agent to fully rely on it without additional context.
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?
The schema description coverage is high (100% for the only parameter), but the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It merely restates the parameter in the tool's purpose without elaboration on expected format, constraints, or value examples.
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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('a growth rate') and the method ('by its name'). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the resource name, which is inherently clear from the tool name itself.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a simple lookup, this may be acceptable, but it still scores low due to lack of any usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an item attribute by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the item attribute. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It simply says 'Get information' without disclosing any behavioral details like read-only nature, potential errors, or data scope.
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, which is concise but omits potentially useful context, making it slightly under-informative. It strikes a balance but could be enhanced without losing brevity.
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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description provides the minimum viable information. However, it lacks mention of response structure or examples, leaving it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the API.
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?
Parameter 'name' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond replicating the schema's purpose. Baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'item attribute', along with the method 'by its name'. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling get*ByName tools, leading to a slight lack of specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getItemByName or other attribute retrieval. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an item by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the item. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get information', implying a safe read operation but without confirming side effects, authentication needs, or response behavior. The burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to disclose these aspects.
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 very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or examples). However, for such a simple tool, it is adequately succinct.
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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what information is returned, which could be ambiguous for an agent deciding between similar tools.
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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'by its name' mirrors the parameter description, so the description provides no extra value.
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 retrieves information about an item by name, matching the verb 'Get' and resource 'item'. It distinguishes from siblings like getBerryByName or getPokemonByName by specifying 'item', though it could be more explicit about the scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getItemCategoryByName or getItemFlingEffectByName. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an item category by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the item category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get information' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return structure looks like. This is insufficient for responsible use.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word carries meaning, making it highly concise.
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?
The tool has low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but the description omits any mention of return values or behavior. It is functional but could be more complete by stating what kind of information is returned.
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 for the single parameter 'name' is 100% with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get information' combined with resource 'item category' and method 'by its name'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getItemByName or getBerryByName which target different resources.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without contextual help like 'If you have the category name, use this; for other identifiers use getItemCategoryById'. However, the tool name makes the use case obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an item fling effect by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the item fling effect. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get information' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or behavior on missing names. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 is efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 lookup tool without output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention return value structure or error handling to improve completeness.
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% (the single parameter is described adequately in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the verb (get), resource (item fling effect), and lookup method (by name). It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite many similar sibling tools. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about an item pocket by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the item pocket. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose key behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the name does not exist (e.g., error vs null return), or any side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral traits.
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 of 10 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is essential; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and the input. However, it could mention the output format or the expected behavior on failure, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so baseline is 3. The parameter description 'The name of the item pocket' is clear and matches the tool's purpose. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.
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 'Get information about an item pocket by its name' clearly states the action (Get), the resource (information about an item pocket), and how it is accessed (by name). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different resources.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use a different lookup tool (e.g., by ID). It implicitly assumes the user knows to use it for item pockets by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a language by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information' implying a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The agent cannot assess safety or typical usage constraints.
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, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could be slightly more informative.
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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, list language sources, or provide context for the large sibling set, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a straightforward string parameter. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 retrieves information about a language by name, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from numerous sibling tools following the same pattern, leading to ambiguity in selection.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAbilityByName or getPokemonByName. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a location area by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the location area. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation. No annotations are present, so the description should disclose traits like side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but it does not. The tool appears to be a simple read operation, but transparency is minimal.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the purpose with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema. It does not specify what information is returned (e.g., fields of the location area), potential limitations, or any edge cases. For a retrieval tool, this lack of detail reduces completeness.
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 a clear description for the single 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information for a specific location area by its name, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like getLocationByName and other getByName tools by specifying 'location area' as the resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool might be more appropriate (e.g., searching by ID instead of name).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a location by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the location. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. No mention of data freshness, return structure, or potential limitations.
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 is direct and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.
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?
Despite a simple input, the description lacks information about the output or any constraints. With no output schema and many sibling tools, the agent needs more context to differentiate and use correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating the parameter's purpose ('the name of the location').
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'location by name', which exactly describes the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings that follow the same pattern for different resources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getLocationAreaByName. The description only states the function but does not provide any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a machine by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the machine. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval, such as error handling, permissions, or response format. Minimal value added.
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, 9 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted or 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 get-by-ID tool, the description is adequate. It covers the essential usage without needing extensive behavioral details, especially given the straightforward parameter schema.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter with a description. The described parameter semantics are redundant with the schema, adding no extra meaning. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.
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 action (get), resource (machine), and identifier method (by ID). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are mostly by name.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getMachineByName (if it existed). Sibling tools are all similar get*ByName/ById, but no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move ailment by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move ailment. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get information') but lacks specifics on side effects, rate limits, or data scope. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
One sentence, 10 words, no extraneous content. Essential information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose and method, though it could optionally list return fields.
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 parameter, and the description ('by its name') adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and the resource ('move ailment') with the method ('by name'). While it distinguishes from siblings by resource type, it does not provide additional differentiation beyond the name.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move battle style by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move battle style. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get information', which is opaque. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple lookup, it is likely safe, but this is not communicated.
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, short sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the large set of sibling tools, the description is minimal. It does not explain what information is returned or how this tool differs from similar ones, leaving the agent without sufficient context to select or use it confidently.
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% for the single parameter 'name', so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action 'Get information' and the resource 'move battle style', distinguishing it from other sibling tools that retrieve different resources by name. However, it does not specify what type of information is returned (e.g., stats, effects), which would enhance clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., getMoveByName). The usage context is implicit: use when needing a move battle style by name. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits). The agent must infer that it is a simple read operation.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'information about a move' entails or any constraints. It is too minimal for a tool with many siblings.
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 one parameter described as 'The name of the move.' The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating 'by its name.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 verb('Get'), resource('move'), and lookup method('by name'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type, though it does not elaborate on what specific information is returned.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other getXByName tools). No context on prerequisites or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move category by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. As a read operation, basic transparency is minimal but expected.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could include more detail on return value.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should indicate the nature of the returned information or behavior on failure. It only says 'Get information', leaving ambiguity about format and edge cases.
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% for the single parameter, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'move category', specifying that it retrieves information by name. This is distinct from sibling tools which target other entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling 'getByName' tools. The description does not differentiate usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move damage class by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move damage class. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states 'Get information'. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance characteristics, or authentication needs.
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, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details about the returned information, which could be helpful.
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% for the single parameter 'name', so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (move damage class) and the identifier (by name). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from many sibling tools with similar patterns.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar 'getByName' tools, but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move learn method by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move learn method. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Get information' without specifying return format, possible errors, or side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond the parameter.
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 is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 straightforward lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks detail on the returned information. The agent may not know what 'information' entails, which could lead to incomplete expectations.
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 description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the burden.
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 action (Get) and the resource (information about a move learn method) with the selection criterion (by its name). It differentiates from siblings which target other entities like abilities, berries, etc.
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 implies when to use (when needing info on a move learn method) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For a simple lookup, this is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a move target by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the move target. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description gives no behavioral details beyond the obvious retrieval action. No mention of read-only status, side effects, or required permissions.
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 with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with many similar siblings.
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 lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about return format or behavior, but the tool is straightforward.
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% for the single 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 retrieves information about a move target by name. However, it does not differentiate from many similar sibling tools like getAbilityByName or getBerryByName.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other 'get...ByName' tools. The name is the only differentiator, which may be insufficient for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a nature by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the nature. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or involves external API calls, nor does it describe the return format or potential side effects.
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 with no wasted words, but it is underspecified. While concise, it does not earn a higher score because it lacks important context that could be included without significant length.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states the purpose and required input, but it does not describe what 'information' is returned or any constraints.
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?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which already documents the 'name' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's 'by its name' is redundant with the schema.
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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('a nature') with the method ('by its name'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many sibling tools that follow the same pattern, so it does not achieve a top score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools with similar naming conventions, explicit usage guidelines would be helpful but are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pal park area by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pal park area. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only implies a read operation ('Get information'). It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or error conditions, which is insufficient for a tool with no 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 a single sentence that directly states the purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.
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 absence of an output schema, the description should provide information about the return value or what 'information' is included. It does not, making it incomplete. The tool's simplicity partially compensates, but more detail is expected.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Get information' and the resource 'pal park area' with the method 'by its name', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling tools that follow the same 'get...ByName' pattern.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokeathlon stat by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokeathlon stat. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get information' without clarifying if the tool is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The description omits behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.
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, efficient sentence. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the key action. It avoids extraneous information, making it quick to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what 'information' is returned (e.g., ID, description, stats), leaving some ambiguity. Could benefit from listing return fields.
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% (one parameter 'name' described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid name or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder but also doesn't enhance understanding.
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 retrieves information about a pokeathlon stat by name, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pokeathlon stat'). The name and description together clearly distinguish it from sibling tools that target different resources (abilities, berries, etc.).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other getXByName tools). It does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokedex by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokedex. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get information', implying read-only, but lacks details on return format, side effects, authentication, or rate limits.
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, straightforward sentence. It is concise but sacrifices completeness; still, it is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, possible states, or any contextual information about pokedexes.
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 a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description adds no extra context beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.
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 retrieves information about a pokedex by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations. The description is minimal and assumes the user knows to pick the tool matching the resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a Pokemon by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the Pokemon. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information', without revealing what information is returned, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to gauge safety or expectations.
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 is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbosity.
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?
The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits any details about the return structure or expected behavior, which is a gap given the lack of an output schema and many sibling tools that could be confused.
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% (one parameter 'name' fully described). The description repeats the schema's description verbatim, adding no additional semantic depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'information about a Pokemon', and the method 'by its name'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which refer to different entities (e.g., abilities, berries) or use different identifiers (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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The implicit usage is simple, but explicit guidance is absent for an AI agent comparing sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokemon color by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokemon color. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. There is no mention of error handling, rate limits, or side effects.
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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks any usage context or details about the return value.
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% for the single parameter 'name', which already explains its purpose. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Get information') and the resource ('a pokemon color') with the method ('by its name'). It is distinct from many sibling 'get...ByName' tools but could be more specific about what 'information' includes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. With 45+ sibling tools, explicit context on when to pick this one is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokemon form by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokemon form. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get information' without specifying read-only nature, error handling, or response details.
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 directly states the purpose. No redundant words, appropriately concise.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details like what happens on invalid input or the nature of returned data.
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?
The schema already describes the parameter ('The name of the pokemon form') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the parameter role.
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 action (Get) and resource (information about a pokemon form). It is specific to pokemon forms, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like getPokemonByName or getPokemonSpeciesByName.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokemon habitat by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokemon habitat. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Get information' (a read operation) but fails to mention error handling (e.g., if name not found), rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is useful, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details about return format, error behavior, or any preconditions, which would be helpful for a complete context.
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 description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 for high coverage, and while the description is not informative, it also doesn't mislead.
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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('pokemon habitat by its name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific entity type, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'information' includes.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use when you need habitat details by name. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or alternatives are provided, which is acceptable given the distinct sibling resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokemon shape by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokemon shape. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that information is retrieved, but does not describe what type of information, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.
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, clear sentence with no extraneous content. It is slightly under-specified but not wasteful; however, it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details that would be helpful for an agent, such as the return format or possible error cases, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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% (the single parameter 'name' is described in the schema as 'The name of the pokemon shape'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and the specific resource ('pokemon shape') identified by name. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings that retrieve other Pokemon entities by name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving the agent without context for selection among many similar get-by-name tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a pokemon species by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the pokemon species. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not mention any behavioral traits, such as read-only nature, potential errors, or rate limits. It merely states 'Get information', which is insufficient disclosure.
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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it may be overly brief for some contexts.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what fields or data will be returned. While the tool is simple, the minimal description may leave the agent uncertain about the response structure.
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?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 retrieves information about a pokemon species by name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getPokemonByName which retrieves a different entity. The parameter schema covers the name field adequately.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPokemonByName or other getByName tools. The description lacks context on when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a region by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the region. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error behavior, or case sensitivity. For a simple lookup, basic transparency is missing.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It could potentially include more detail without sacrificing brevity, but it is appropriately front-loaded.
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 simplicity of the tool (one required param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context like case sensitivity or data source provenance, leaving room for improvement.
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 parameter 'name', and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'The name of the region.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already defines 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 'Get information about a region by its name,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different entities (ability, berry, etc.).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for other resources, but the description does not provide any context for selection or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a stat by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the stat. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get information') but does not explicitly state that it is safe or if there are side effects. Additionally, it lacks details about error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the stat name is invalid.
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, concise sentence of 8 words. It front-loads the core purpose without any redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not indicate what kind of information is returned (e.g., stat value, category) or provide examples. For a simple lookup, it suffices but leaves room for improved completeness.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a description ('The name of the stat.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description simply paraphrases this ('by its name') without adding new meaning, such as format constraints, case sensitivity, or examples. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 uses 'Get' as a specific verb and 'stat' as the resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAbilityByName or getPokemonByName by specifying a different resource type. However, it does not elaborate on what a stat is in this context, which could be ambiguous without the sibling list.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., getAbilityByName, getBerryByName). The description does not include any exclusions, alternative tool suggestions, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a super contest effect by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the super contest effect. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'get information', which is implicit from the name. It does not disclose return format, safety, side effects, or required permissions.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is under-specified for completeness.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by hinting at return data or read-only nature, but it does not. The agent lacks key information to assess whether this tool meets its needs.
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% (the single 'id' parameter is described as 'The ID of the super contest effect'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action (get), resource (super contest effect), and lookup method (by ID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getContestEffectById, lacking distinctions between similar getters.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a type by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the type. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Get information' without disclosing any behavioral traits like what type of data is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects.
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 concise sentence with no waste, suitable for a simple tool, though it is notably brief.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal—it does not explain what a 'type' is in this context or what the returned information contains, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 'name' described as 'The name of the type.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding 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 gets information about a type by its name, but it does not differentiate from many similar sibling tools like getAbilityByName or getBerryByName, which follow the same pattern.
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 implies usage when you need type information by name, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a version by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the version. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Get information' without specifying what information is returned, side effects, permissions, or constraints. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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, 8 words, no filler. Efficiently states purpose without redundancy.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, description is minimally complete but lacks details on return format or constraints. Adequate but not rich.
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 covers parameter 'name' with description; tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 action ('Get information') and resource ('a version by its name'). Distinguishes from sibling tools which retrieve different resources (e.g., getAbilityByName, getBerryByName) through resource naming.
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?
Description implies usage context (retrieve version info by name) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information about a version group by its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the version group. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side-effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It merely states the action without transparency into behavior.
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?
Extremely concise at one sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.
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 lookup without output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information about the returned data structure. It covers the basic usage but is not fully complete.
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?
The one parameter is fully covered by the schema with a description matching the tool's purpose. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 tool retrieves information about a version group by name, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other Pokémon resources. However, 'Get information' is somewhat generic, lacking specificity on what exactly is returned.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many similar getXByName tools, the description provides no context for differentiation or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct Pokemon entity type (ability, berry, etc.), with no overlap in purpose. An agent can clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a strict 'getXByName' or 'getXById' pattern, ensuring predictable and uniform naming.
With 47 tools, the server is quite heavy. While it covers many entity types, the count is high for a typical MCP server and may overwhelm agents, though it is scoped to a single domain.
The server provides read-only access to a wide range of Pokemon data, but lacks listing, search, or mutation capabilities. This limits its completeness for dynamic workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Gateway between LLM agents and world data through eight tools and a bundled endpoint catalog.
Discover, inspect and run 60,000+ agent tools from one balance. Pay per call, no subscriptions.
Exactly 50 data transformation and live web verification tools for AI agents.
Universal AI API Orchestrator — 1,554 tools, 96 services. One install.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Asthanaji05/MCP_Pokemon'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
