psa_price_guide_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool returns one set's complete card-by-card price table and that grade columns vary (vintage sets may have more/lower grade tiers than modern ones). This alerts the agent to variable output structure. It doesn't mention side effects, but as a 'Fetches' operation, none are 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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence efficiently covers response structure and parameter sourcing. Minor repetition exists ('Get... Fetches...'), but no filler or irrelevant content.

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 3-parameter requirement and no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool returns, the variable nature of the price columns, and how to assemble valid identifiers. It could include an example or error context, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 documents each parameter, but the description adds semantic value by stating that category_path, set_path, and set_id together identify the set, and by explaining where to obtain each field. This group-level meaning and provenance guidance goes beyond the individual schema property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a PSA Price Guide set's price table') and elaborates on exactly what that means: the full grade-by-grade table for every card, with PSA's formatted per-grade prices. It naturally differentiates itself from the sibling search/categories tools by its singular set-scoped focus.

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 gives clear parameter-sourcing instructions: use fields from psa-price-guide-search, or combine category_path from psa-price-guide-categories with set_path/set_id from PSA's own category page. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use this tool' or compare it against alternatives for selection, but the source hints effectively imply the discovery-vs-retrieval workflow.

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