Retrieve GTO opening ranges and frequencies for 6-max cash games at 100BB stack depth by table position.
Retrieve GTO opening ranges and frequencies for 6-max cash games at 100BB stack depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | Table position to inspect (default: UTG). | UTG |
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 behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a safe read operation, and the scope details (6-max, 100BB) add useful context, but the description does not clarify the return format, limitations (e.g., only opening ranges, not vs. raises), or any operational constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the resource and the exact 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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition supplies enough domain context to call it correctly. It could still note what the returned ranges and frequencies look like, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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%, with the single 'position' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for that parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('GTO opening ranges and frequencies') with scope qualifiers ('6-max cash games at 100BB stack depth'). It is clear enough to distinguish from calculators and rule lookups, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lookup_starting_hand.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. The domain context (6-max cash, 100BB) implies the tool's purpose, but an agent must infer usage conditions entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.