goldfish_metagame

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's main role is to add behavioral context. It does so by specifying the tool returns data about archetypes, percentages, deck counts, and prices, which is helpful. No contradictions with 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 only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second lists the outputs. No extraneous 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, the description explains what the tool returns (archetypes, percentages, deck counts, prices), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but overall it is adequately 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 coverage is 100% and the parameters (format, response_format) are well-documented in the schema with examples and enum values. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in 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 verb (Get) and resource (current metagame breakdown for a competitive format). It lists specific outputs (top archetypes, meta share percentages, deck counts, estimated paper prices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like goldfish_archetype_list or goldfish_format_staples.

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 indicates usage for 'a competitive format,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like metagame_snapshot or goldfish_archetype_list. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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