steam_get_market_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect transparency. The description adds 'single item' and 'rarity and condition' but does not disclose the exact match requirement for market_hash_name or the extra request triggered by include_item_details. Since annotations lower the bar, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's scope.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, and an output schema exists, so the tool's functionality is well-documented. The description is minimal but adequate for a read-only getter, though it could mention the need for exact market_hash_name and the optional extra request for details, which are covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter names or values. It only hints at 'rarity and condition' which loosely maps to include_item_details, but this is insufficient compensation for the low 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 tool gets the Community Market price for a single item, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on price lookup for one item, and mentions additional output details (rarity/condition).

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, no required context, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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