Retrieve every printing of a Magic: The Gathering card, sorted cheapest first with set names and USD prices, to compare options and support budget deckbuilding.
Every printing of a card, cheapest first, with set and USD prices. Useful for budget builds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: result ordering (cheapest first) and that each printing includes set and USD price, which is the key behavioral fact. However it says nothing about the default result cap, pagination, or what happens for a name with no printings.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the use case. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still summarizes them briefly. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the omission of the limit/truncation behavior leaves a real gap for a tool that returns a variable-length list.
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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, and it does not. `name` is only implied as the card identifier and the `limit` parameter (default 15) is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess whether results are truncated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource (every printing of a card) and its ordering (cheapest first) plus the data returned (set and USD prices). That distinguishes it from get_card and search_cards, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
"Useful for budget builds" implies a usage context for price-comparison shopping, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any reference to the alternatives (get_card, search_cards) that an agent might otherwise pick. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.