steam_getPriceOverview

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It mentions 'No API key required' and the return data format, but omits critical details such as rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid appids), whether the tool modifies state (likely not), or response structure. The agent lacks information about potential side effects or 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose and scope, and the second adds a key behavioral note ('No API key required') and return format summary. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirements and return data. However, it could mention that appids must be numeric or that the tool is read-only. The lack of output schema is compensated by describing the return fields. Sibling tools table suggests many related tools; the description helps differentiate from batch vs single queries.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds context like 'batch' and 'region', but these are already implied by the parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('batch price check'), resource ('multiple Steam apps'), and scope ('in a specific region'). It also specifies the return format (base price, discount, final price). This distinguishes it from siblings like steam_getRegionalPricing which may target single apps.

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 notes 'No API key required', which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over similar siblings like steam_getRegionalPricing or steam_getAppDetails. The context of 'batch' implies multiple apps, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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