steam_get_market_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns rarity and condition, which is output content rather than behavioral disclosure. No side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements are mentioned, but the annotation covers the main behavioral aspect (read-only). The description does not contradict 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, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant details (rarity, condition) without verbosity. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though that is a separate concern from conciseness itself.

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 multiple parameters and a specific input format (market_hash_name, currency codes), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the hash name, when to set include_item_details to false, or what response_format options mean. The schema covers these, but the description adds no context to help an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate or how to call it correctly. It relies entirely on the schema, which is not enough for a complex market lookup.

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%, meaning the description provides no parameter information. The schema itself has thorough descriptions for each parameter (appid, currency, market_hash_name, etc.), but the rule states that with low coverage the description must compensate. It does not, so an agent must rely entirely on the schema without any high-level guidance on how parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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 it retrieves the Community Market price for a single item, and mentions rarity and condition as part of the result. This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like steam_get_app_regional_pricing, which also deals with pricing but for regional store pricing rather than market.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context about when market price data is appropriate. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient for confident selection among many Steam tools.

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