isthereanydeal-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools target distinct resources, but several lookup and info tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., lookup_gid_title_v1 vs games_lookup_v1 vs lookup_gid_shopid_v1). The descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix URL paths with optional HTTP method suffixes. Some GET endpoints include _get while others do not (e.g., collection_games_v1_get vs games_bundles_v2), and versions are embedded inconsistently (v1/v2/v3). The pattern is not uniform.
Tool Count1/5
With 53 tools, this is well beyond the '25+ feels heavy' threshold and enters the '50+ extreme' territory. While it may mirror the full ITAD API, the sheer number is overwhelming for an agent and likely violates the 'each tool earns its place' principle.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a broad range of ITAD functionality: deals, game info/prices, bundles, history, collection/waitlist management, notifications, profiles, stats, and user notes. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., advanced deal filtering), but the core workflows are well represented.
Average 3.1/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose authentication requirements (API key and specific env vars) and directs users to a guide for full details. However, it does not disclose the operation's side effects, input expectations beyond 'body,' response format, or any rate limits, leaving significant opacity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and gets to the point, but the 'Prices' label is redundant filler. The auth and guide pointer are useful, but the mixed-language structure and lack of a clear purpose statement reduce readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a POST endpoint requiring a body with no output schema and rich sibling context, the description is insufficient. It points to an external guide for full detail, but an agent would need to dereference that resource to understand the request payload, expected behavior, and response, making it incomplete for standalone selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is marked 100%, the property descriptions are generic; the 'body' is described merely as a mandatory request body with no content details. The description adds nothing beyond restating the requirement for body and API key, and does not help an agent construct the body or query parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the HTTP method and path, and labels the resource as 'Prices,' but does not explain what prices are returned, for which games, or how the endpoint behaves. This is tautological with the tool name and does not differentiate from sibling price-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as games_info_v2 or games_history_v2. The only usage-related note is that body is required and an API key is needed, which is not a usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does state the API key requirement and points to a guide resource, but it does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, or response behavior. The POST method implies mutation but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the endpoint, required field, and auth details. Each piece of information is useful, though the phrase 'Game Subscriptions' is redundant with the tool name. It is concise but sacrifices depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of 5 parameters with nested objects, this description is inadequate. It delegates full instructions to an external resource (itad://guide/calling), indicating the description itself is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error cases, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'request body (required)') and the description merely repeats that body is required. Neither the description nor the schema explains the structure or meaning of the body or other parameters, adding no real value beyond the property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Game Subscriptions' which essentially restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does (e.g., create, list, manage). The endpoint method POST is shown, but no verb or operation is described, leaving the action ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required body and API key prerequisites, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., waitlist_games_v1, games_bundles_v2). No alternative tools 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It mentions the need for an API key and a required body, and the POST method implies a mutation, but it does not disclose what changes occur, whether results are persisted, rate limits, error cases, or what happens on success. The external resource pointer shifts responsibility rather than disclosing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but it sacrifices useful content for brevity. The first sentence is the endpoint and label, the second mentions requirements, and the third points to external docs. No information is wasted, but the structure is not front-loaded with the most critical functional details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a POST endpoint with a required body, API key prerequisites, nested objects in schema, and no output schema. The description is incomplete: it does not explain the purpose, request format, response structure, or practical usage. The pointer to an external resource suggests the description itself is not self-contained, which is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'request body (required)') and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating '必填: body'. The description does not clarify what the body should contain or what query/path parameters are valid for this endpoint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '[POST] /games/storelow/v2 - Store Low' which is only a vague label and endpoint, not a clear explanation of the tool's function. It does not distinguish itself from many sibling games_* tools, leaving the agent unsure whether this retrieves store-specific low prices, sets low-price alerts, or performs some other operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that a body is required and an API key is needed, but does not describe the typical use case, target audience, or relationship to other tools like games_prices_v3 or deals_v2. The pointer to itad://guide/calling is a resource for instructions, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the need for an API key and points to a guide resource, but does not describe behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The endpoint is labeled [GET], but the description itself does not elaborate on behavior beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the endpoint and required parameter front-loaded. The mention of the external guide resource is useful but the mixed-language phrasing and the second sentence could be clearer. Overall, every sentence contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. 'History log' is too vague, and while it points to itad://guide/calling for full instructions, it does not summarize the response or the tool's overall behavior. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (100%), and the description adds that 'query: id' is required and lists API key environment variables. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of the 'id' parameter—whether it's a game ID, user ID, or something else. The baseline of 3 is met, but no extra value beyond schema basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'History log' which essentially restates the tool name games_history_v2 without explaining what kind of history (e.g., price history, user activity) or providing any scope. It also does not differentiate from the similar sibling games_historylow_v1.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says '必填: query: id' and '需要 API Key', but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like games_historylow_v1. It lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions required body and API key environment variables, but does not describe response format, side effects (though GET implies read-only), or any rate limits. The 'Excluded from Family Sharing' label adds context but not operational transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with three concise sentences covering method, resource, required body, API key, and a pointer to full instructions. No waste, but the phrasing is telegraphic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema or annotations, and with a required body whose structure is undefined, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. The pointer to the guide helps but the description itself leaves too many unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists 5 parameters with generic descriptions; the description only restates that body is required. It does not explain what the body should contain for this endpoint, which is critical since body is required. Schema coverage is high but superficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the endpoint as '[GET] /internal/exfgls/v1' and labels it 'Excluded from Family Sharing', indicating a GET request related to that topic. However, it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'list', 'retrieve') and does not distinguish this internal endpoint from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references external documentation (itad://guide/calling) for calling instructions, not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the HTTP method (GET) and API key requirement, but does not describe return format, pagination, error behavior, or confirm that it is read-only. The behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the endpoint and method. It efficiently lists auth requirements and guide availability. The only minor redundancy is 'Most Collected' repeating the name, but overall it is well-structured and without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not explain what the response contains or how to interpret the stats. It fails to differentiate among sibling stats tools, though it does point to a guide for full instructions. This is insufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'no additional required parameters,' but this is already evident from the schema's all-optional properties. It does not provide endpoint-specific parameter documentation, leaving the generic query/pathParams ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states 'Most Collected' which is essentially a restatement of the endpoint name. It lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not clarify that it returns the most-collected games, making it vague and indistinguishable from sibling stats endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides authentication requirements and a pointer to a guide resource, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling stats tools (e.g., stats_most_popular_v1, stats_most_waitlisted_v1). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the OAuth requirement and points to an external guide, but it does not describe the response format, pagination, read-only nature, or any side effects. The GET method implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. It includes the OAuth requirement and a pointer to external guidance without excessive detail. It is efficient, though the 'Games in Collection' fragment could be integrated more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide richer context about what the endpoint returns and how it behaves. It only mentions authentication and a guide resource, leaving the actual response structure and usage unclear. The pointer to an external guide is not a substitute for inline context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates that no required parameters exist and mentions environment variables already listed in the oauthToken property. Since the schema fully documents the generic parameters, the description provides no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the HTTP method and resource path, and labels it 'Games in Collection', which conveys that this endpoint concerns games in a collection. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', so the action is implied rather than stated. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like collection_games_v1_put or collection_copies_v1_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that no additional required parameters exist and that an OAuth token is needed, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as collection_games_v1_put or collection_copies_v1_get. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and points to an external guide, but does not describe the actual operation, effects, data returned, or any potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the API key.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the endpoint and method, followed by requirements. It is appropriately short for a simple wrapper tool, though the reference to the external guide could be seen as a fallback rather than a complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a POST endpoint with a required body, yet the description does not explain what the body should contain, what the response looks like, or how it relates to sibling history tools. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that body is required, which the schema already states, and adds no information about the body structure or query/header semantics. It only references an external guide for details, which does not directly enrich the parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the endpoint path and label 'History Low' but does not clearly state what the tool does or what 'History Low' means. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool games_history_v2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as games_history_v2 or games_storelow_v2. The description only states required body and API key, and points to an external guide resource, but does not explain use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that an API key is required (listing environment variables) and points to a resource for full call instructions. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. Given no annotations, this is minimal but useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the endpoint and required information. The env var list is somewhat verbose but serves a practical purpose. No wasted sentences; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no description of return values, making it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect. It also lacks any differentiation from sibling tools. The pointer to the guide resource is helpful but does not compensate for missing core behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that 'query: id' is required, which is already in the schema, but adds no meaning about what 'id' represents or how it is used. The API key requirement is not a parameter, so it does not enhance parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Game Info' essentially restates the tool name 'games_info_v2' without specifying what information is returned or the action performed. It lacks a clear verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like games_prices_v3 or games_overview_v2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required id and API key, but does not state the scenario or context for preferred use, nor does it name any alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the HTTP method, authentication requirements, and the absence of required parameters, but it fails to describe the output, side effects, or exact behavior of the lookup, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the HTTP method and endpoint, followed by essential usage constraints and a pointer to full documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's generic schema, lack of output schema, and many sibling lookup tools, the description is incomplete. It does not define the lookup scope, available query/body parameters, return structure, or concrete examples. Reliance on an external guide resource mitigates but does not resolve the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema covers all five generic parameters (body, query, headers, oauthToken, pathParams), their descriptions are boilerplate and tool-agnostic. The description only adds 'no additional required parameters,' which is helpful but does not clarify what specific parameters should be passed or how they affect the lookup.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Lookup Game' with an explicit GET endpoint (games/lookup/v1), providing a clear verb and resource. However, it is too generic to distinguish from sibling lookup tools such as lookup_gid_title_v1, lookup_shopid_gid_v1, and games_search_v1, and it does not specify what kind of game lookup is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that no additional required parameters exist and that an API key (via environment variables) is required. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives, and the pointer to the guide resource is more of a reference than actionable usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses OAuth requirements and mandatory fields, but it does not state whether the operation overwrites data, merges, or deletes anything, nor what the response contains. 'Sync Collection' is too ambiguous to convey side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler, covering endpoint, required fields, and authentication. It is appropriately compact, though the information is packed together rather than structured for easy scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-like sync tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what information the body must contain, what the tool returns, or how the sync behaves. The reference to an external guide is not a substitute for inline context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions already cover all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly states that headers and body are required but adds no additional meaning about parameter values, formats, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a PUT call to /profiles/sync/collection/v1 and labels it 'Sync Collection', but the verb 'Sync' is vague and does not explain what syncing entails. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like profiles_sync_waitlist_v1_put, which shares the same sync pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative collection update or sync tools. It only lists required headers/body and OAuth requirements, plus a pointer to an external guide, neither of which helps an agent choose among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention API key requirements and the required id, but it does not describe the response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the implied read-only GET.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, giving the endpoint, required id, and auth requirement in one sentence. The reference to an external guide adds minor overhead but does not hurt readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and what the data means. It fails to do so, leaving the id semantics and the nature of the stats undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that query.id is required, adding no meaning about what id represents or its format beyond the permissive anyOf in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as 'Waitlist Stats' with a GET path, but does not specify what statistics are returned or how they differ from sibling tools like stats_most_waitlisted_v1. The verb is implied by GET, but the purpose remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many waitlist/stats siblings. It only states the required id and points to an external guide, without conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions OAuth token requirements and references a guide resource, but it does not explain the side effects of a PATCH operation, whether it partially updates or replaces, what data it returns, or any error handling. The pointer to itad://guide/calling shifts responsibility and does not satisfy transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a single line with essential elements: endpoint, purpose, required body, OAuth requirement, and a guide reference. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbiage, though the guide reference could be seen as a detour.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a PATCH tool with no annotations, no output schema, and shallow parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, body structure, or the meaning of 'Categories.' The reference to an external guide is not a substitute for self-contained context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., '请求体（此接口必填）'). The description only repeats that body is required and mentions OAuth token fallback, which is already in the schema. It does not add meaning about the body's structure or expected fields for updating categories.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the HTTP method and purpose: '[PATCH] /collection/groups/v1 - Update Categories.' This provides a specific verb (Update) and resource (Categories), distinguishing it from sibling operations like POST or DELETE on the same endpoint. However, the meaning of 'Categories' is not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives prerequisites (required body, OAuth token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or scenarios where another sibling tool (e.g., collection_groups_v1_post or collection_groups_v1_put) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), required API key, and the specific environment variables, and points to a guide resource for full details. However, it does not describe the response shape, possible errors, or the actual content of the 'WSGF Overview,' leaving significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that provide necessary call information (method, required param, auth, and a pointer to a guide). There is no fluff or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of a guide reference and schema-required params, the description lacks a clear functional summary of what the endpoint returns or why it is used. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a descriptive explanation, but 'WSGF Overview' remains ambiguous. The tool is internal and has complex query/body structures, so more context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that 'query: appid' is required, adding no meaning beyond the schema. The schema's appid type is overly permissive (any type/array), and the description does not clarify the expected format or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only says 'WSGF Overview,' which essentially restates the endpoint name 'wsgf_v1' without explaining what WSGF is or what the overview contains. It lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description only mentions required parameters and API key requirements, which are call mechanics, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions API key requirements and points to a guide resource, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. For a POST endpoint, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise, front-loading the endpoint and purpose, then stating requirements. Two sentences with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks body structure, return format, and clear use cases. The pointer to an external guide resource attempts to compensate but is not self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% since each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds only 'body required', which is already in the schema's required array, so no additional meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the endpoint and resource as 'Price Overview', which is clear enough to suggest a pricing-related operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'fetch') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like games_prices_v3 or deals_v2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It only states required body and API key requirements, with no contextual cues for typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via the HTTP method and mentions the API key requirement, but it omits rate limits, error patterns, and the meaning of the response. The reference to an external guide is helpful but not a substitute for direct disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource, followed by essential auth info and a link to the guide. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and nested query parameters, so the description should clarify return values and edge cases. It only says 'Reviews Score' without explaining the response format or potential errors. The guide link is useful, but the description itself is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the required query.appid parameter and its type, so the description's repetition of '必填: query: appid' adds little value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't go beyond the schema to explain what appid represents or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a GET endpoint for 'Reviews Score', which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like internal_rates_v1. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'Reviews Score' or the shape of the response, so it's clear but not fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It states the required parameter and authentication, but doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements and the required id, but does not describe side effects (e.g., permanent state change) or response behavior. The pointer to an external guide is helpful but not a substitute for in-description transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences, front-loading the core action. It includes necessary auth and required-field info without fluff. The reference to an external resource is somewhat indirect but not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description covers the essential inputs and auth, and the external guide reference helps. However, it lacks output/response details and side-effect transparency, and with no output schema, these gaps are not filled elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), including the id, oauthToken, and environment variables. The description merely restates '必填: query: id' and auth token info without adding new semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Mark notification read' and specifies the HTTP method and path. It identifies the required id parameter, making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling notifications_read_all_v1_put, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like notifications_read_all_v1_put or notifications_list_v1_get. It only states required parameters and auth requirements, with no mention of use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE) and auth requirements, but does not explain consequences of unlinking (e.g., irreversibility, effect on linked services, error behavior), leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, and includes essential invocation info (required header, auth, and guide pointer) in a compact form. It is well-structured but could be slightly improved by clarifying the resource being unlinked.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides auth requirements and a pointer to a guide, which aids invocation, but lacks conceptual context (what 'unlink profile' means, return values, error cases). Given the schema covers parameters and there is no output schema, the description is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description repeats the required header and oauth token, but the schema already provides these details; it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. The reference to the guide resource is extra, but not parameter-specific.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Unlink profile' with the HTTP method DELETE and endpoint path. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'profiles_link_v1_put' (which presumably links), though it could be more explicit about what a 'profile' refers to in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, only stating required headers and OAuth token. It does not mention scenarios where this should be used over other profile-related tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions auth requirements and required body, but doesn't explain side effects, idempotency, what happens to existing links, or response format. Pointing to an external guide shifts the burden instead of providing transparent details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and includes key requirements (body, OAuth) and a doc reference. Every piece of information earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a PUT mutation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it doesn't describe what the body should contain, what success/error responses look like, or the effect of linking a profile. It delegates to an external resource, which isn't available at selection time.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters, and the description reiterates that body is required and OAuth token is needed with env var fallback, matching the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Link profile' with the HTTP PUT method and endpoint path, clearly identifying a profile-linking operation. However, it doesn't specify what linking entails or how it differs from sibling tools like profiles_link_v1_delete, making it clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as profiles_link_v1_delete or profiles_sync_* tools. The description only mentions required body and OAuth token, leaving usage context entirely to the reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must convey side effects and behavior. It discloses that the operation is a PUT requiring OAuth and specific headers/body, but does not explain what 'sync' does (e.g., overwrite vs merge), return values, or error cases. The pointer to itad://guide/calling partially compensates but is not self-contained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the endpoint, followed by essential requirements and a doc pointer. No redundant sentences, though the mixed-language phrasing could be clearer. It earns a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This syncing tool has a required body parameter with no schema properties, and the description does not explain body structure or sync semantics. The only pointer to the external guide indicates incompleteness. Sibling tools are not referenced, making selection context weak. Below average completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds little beyond repeating required headers/body. It does add environment variable names for the OAuth token, which is helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Sync Waitlist' with the PUT endpoint, clearly identifying the resource and action. It is distinct from siblings like profiles_sync_collection_v1_put, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only lists required parameters and OAuth requirements, leaving the agent to infer context from the endpoint name. There are no exclusions or comparisons with related waitlist/collection sync tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it is a GET request and requires an API key, but it does not mention response format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The phrase 'Bundles including Game' is too vague to understand what data is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. It combines multiple pieces of information into one sentence without wasted words. The use of Chinese and abbreviations may reduce clarity for some, but overall it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also fails to mention the optional parameters (body, headers, oauthToken, pathParams) and only addresses query.id. The reference to an external guide is a partial substitute, but the description alone is insufficient for using the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., '请求体（可选）' for body). The description adds that id is required, which is already in the schema, and does not clarify what id represents (e.g., game ID vs bundle ID). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the HTTP method (GET) and resource path (/games/bundles/v2) and gives a brief purpose: 'Bundles including Game'. This distinguishes it from other tools by endpoint, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like games_prices_v3 or games_info_v2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need bundles for a game by specifying the required query parameter id and noting the API key requirement. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or suggest alternative tools, and the pointer to itad://guide/calling is only for call instructions, not for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the OAuth token requirement and lack of required params, but does not describe the response format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the GET verb. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loads the endpoint and HTTP method, and wastes no words. It includes essential auth and guidance pointers in a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what the user info response contains (e.g., fields, scope). It points to an external resource for full instructions rather than being self-contained, leaving the agent guessing about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all 5 parameters with full coverage, including the oauthToken env-var fallback. The description adds 'no additional required parameters' and the env-var alternative, but this largely duplicates schema information, so it neither enhances nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '[GET] /user/info/v2 - User Info', identifying the endpoint and HTTP method, but 'User Info' is vague and restates the tool name without detailing what specific information is returned or for which user. It distinguishes from siblings only by the path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that no required parameters are needed and that an OAuth token is required, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., profiles_link vs user_info) or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the DELETE method and OAuth requirement, and points to a guide resource, but it fails to disclose whether the action is permanent, what the body must contain, or the expected response. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses three sentences to front-load method/endpoint/purpose, then mentions required body, then auth and a guide pointer. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain the request body format and consequences. It only states that body is required and OAuth is needed, then defers to a guide, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., body is '请求体' without structure). The description only repeats that body is required and OAuth token fallback env vars, adding no real detail beyond the schema, leaving the core body semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states '[DELETE] /collection/games/v1 - Delete from Collection', identifying the HTTP method and resource with a specific verb. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools such as collection_games_v1_get or collection_copies_v1_delete, so it lacks sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides prerequisites by stating '必填: body' and '需要 OAuth Token', which tells the agent what is needed to call the tool. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it; the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the HTTP method DELETE and the requirement for OAuth token, which gives some indication of destructive access and auth needs. However, it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to dependent data, error conditions, or idempotency. The pointer to itad://guide/calling is a reference, not actual disclosure. Thus, it's minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential requirements. No unnecessary words or repetition. The structure is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, required body, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to specify the expected body content, response format, or error behavior. It only offers a pointer to an external guide. While the guide may fill gaps, the description itself is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional lookups. The presence of siblings also suggests the need for clearer differentiation, which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as every parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'body' is just 'request body required'). The tool description repeats that body is required but adds no additional semantic detail about the body structure or query/header parameters. It does mention OAuth token fallback, which is already in the schema. Therefore, the description adds no significant value beyond the schema, justifying the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[DELETE] /collection/groups/v1 - Delete Categories,' which clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (Categories/collection groups). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/patch/post. Although terse, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives such as collection_groups_v1_get or collection_groups_v1_post. It only mentions requirements (body, OAuth) and points to an external guide, but does not define use cases or exclusions. This is essentially no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the HTTP method and API key requirement (including environment variable names), but omits return format, error behavior, rate limits, or what the overview includes. The pointer to a guide is helpful but not a substitute for inline disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: endpoint, purpose, required parameter, authentication, and pointer to documentation. Each sentence earns its place with no filler, making efficient use of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema and the tool has nested parameters, the description is too minimal for an agent to invoke it confidently. It lacks details on response format, optional parameters, potential errors, and the meaning of appid. The link to itad://guide/calling partially compensates, but it does not replace inline completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (100% for top-level parameters), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the required query parameter 'appid' and highlighting the API key requirement, but it does not clarify the semantics or acceptable values of appid beyond what the schema's type union already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the HTTP verb (GET) and resource (HowLongToBeat Overview), clearly identifying the tool's function. The name includes 'hltb' and the description mentions 'HowLongToBeat', distinguishing it from sibling internal_* tools, though 'Overview' is somewhat vague about the specific data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving HowLongToBeat overview data via appid, and points to a guide for full instructions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other internal data sources, but no comparison or guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses HTTP method, required body, and optional API key, and points to itad://guide/calling for full instructions. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, side effects, or response format; 'lookup' implies a read but safety disclosure is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with key info front-loaded: endpoint, purpose, required params, auth, and guide reference. No fluff, though the mixed-language '必填' section is slightly cryptic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description does not describe return values or error behavior. Core invocation details (endpoint, required params, auth) are present, but the body schema is undefined and the response format is absent. Pointer to a guide partially mitigates this, but it shifts the burden to another resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage but descriptions are minimal (e.g., body is just 'request body (required)'). The description adds clarity by specifying required path and body parameters and listing environment variable names for the API key, which is not in the schema. However, the body structure remains undocumented, and the description defers to an external guide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Lookup ITAD game IDs by IDs on shop' with the endpoint path /lookup/id/shop/{shopId}/v1, clearly identifying it as a lookup operation for game IDs given a shop ID. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lookup_shopid_gid_v1, but the path parameter makes its direction clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_gid_title_v1 or lookup_shopid_gid_v1. It only provides required/optional parameter notes and a pointer to a guide, but no use-case context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method, auth requirement, and absence of required parameters, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, idempotency), response format, or what exactly is marked (e.g., scoped to the authenticated user). This is a mutation/state-changing tool, so more behavioral detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, then covers auth and additional instructions. It is a single substantive line with useful info, though it packs several clauses, making it slightly dense but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose, auth, and parameter necessity. However, it omits return value/response behavior, potential error cases, and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling single-read tool, so the agent lacks some context for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the oauthToken fallback to environment variables. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, repeating the auth requirement and 'no required parameters' point, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark all notifications read') with the endpoint path, giving a specific verb and resource with scope ('all'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool notifications_read_v1_put, so it doesn't fully distinguish at the wording level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: call this to mark all notifications read. It also notes that no additional required parameters exist and provides an OAuth token requirement, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like notifications_read_v1_put or notifications_list_v1_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET, implying read-only), API key requirements with specific environment variables, and points to a guide resource for full calling instructions. However, it does not describe response format, potential rate limits, or any operational side effects, leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint and title. The second sentence efficiently lists key requirements (no required params, API key, guide resource). It avoids filler, though the list of four environment variables could be considered slightly verbose, but overall it is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation details (endpoint, auth, no required params) and a pointer to a guide for further instructions. However, it omits return value expectations and any optional parameter hints, so while it is minimally adequate, it is not fully complete without consulting the guide resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is generic (body, query, headers, etc.) with descriptions that are mostly boilerplate, so the 100% schema coverage only provides minimal value. The description adds a useful clarification that no required parameters exist, but it does not enumerate any optional query parameters that the endpoint might accept, so meaning beyond the schema is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the HTTP method and resource path ('[GET] /stats/most-popular/v1') and gives a title ('Most Popular'), which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like most_collected and most_waitlisted. However, it does not explicitly state what 'Most Popular' refers to (e.g., games, deals), leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions that no extra required parameters exist and that an API key is needed, but it does not explain when this stats endpoint should be chosen over similar ones or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and required body, but does not describe side effects, reversibility, errors, or response behavior. The pointer to an external resource does not replace in-description transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the method, path, and purpose in the first segment, followed by essential requirements. Two sentences with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague body parameter, the description is insufficient for correct use. It delegates full instructions to an external resource instead of providing essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that body is required and oauthToken can be used, which is already in the schema, adding no extra meaning about the body structure or query/path parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add to Waitlist' with the HTTP method and path, making the operation specific and identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get/delete tools, but the verb 'Add' and PUT method convey the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides prerequisites (required body, OAuth token) but no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling context implies CRUD usage, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements and that body is required, but it does not describe what deletion actually does (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on collections), what the response looks like, or any side effects. The reference to an external guide implies more behavior, but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences of invoking the delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one line plus a note), front-loads the HTTP method and purpose, and includes essential operational details (required body, auth) without unnecessary fluff. It efficiently uses space, though mixing languages (English and Chinese) may reduce clarity for some agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema and a delete operation that could have hidden complexities, the description does not explain the body's structure, possible query parameters, or error semantics. It points to an external guide, but for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, relying on an external guide for core invocation details leaves the description incomplete for an agent to reliably construct a valid request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters, leaving the schema coverage at 100%. The description adds value by specifying that body is required and by listing environment variables for OAuth token fallback, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain what the body should contain or what query/path parameters are valid, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's minimal details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the HTTP method (DELETE), the endpoint path, and the action 'Delete Copies'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_copies_v1_get, _patch, and _post. Despite being terse, it leaves no doubt about the tool's core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that 'body' is required and that an OAuth token is necessary, providing some usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions for exclusion. Pointing to an external guide (itad://guide/calling) is helpful but does not substitute for explicit when-to-use guidance in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention OAuth token requirements and the location of a guide, but it does not describe side effects, idempotency, error responses, or the created resource's representation. For a state-changing POST, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief—three short sentences—and front-loads the endpoint and purpose. It includes necessary auth details and a reference to a guide. No redundant words, though the guide reference could be considered extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a required `body` parameter with no type or structure in either the schema or description, and no output schema. The description directs users to an external guide for full instructions, which is helpful but shifts the burden away from the tool definition. As a result, the description is not self-sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), but the critical `body` parameter has no structure beyond 'request body (required)'. The description reinforces that body is mandatory and clarifies that OAuth can be supplied via the `oauthToken` parameter or environment variables, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'optional' label. However, it does not describe how to construct the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the HTTP method and endpoint, then the verb-object phrase 'Create new Category'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_groups_v1_get (read) and collection_groups_v1_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool creates a category, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., PATCH for updates). The only contextual clue is the endpoint name, which implies the operation. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a GET request and requires an API key, which is useful, but it does not describe response format, pagination, or other behavioral traits that an agent would need to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: three short sentences cover the endpoint, required parameter, authentication requirements, and a pointer to further documentation. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers essential invocation details (method, required param, auth) and points to a guide, but does not mention expected results or limitations. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the required query.title and mentions the API key, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a search on the /games/search/v1 endpoint and requires query.title. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like games_lookup_v1 or lookup_gid_title_v1, so it loses one point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives. It only mentions the API key requirement and points to a guide resource, but does not explain selection criteria among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full transparency burden. It conveys that the operation is an HTTP DELETE and requires OAuth, but it does not disclose permanence, idempotency, not-found behavior, or the specific scope of what is deleted beyond 'notes'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three short sentences and the key action front-loaded. The pointer to itad://guide/calling is additional but not excessive, though it introduces a dependency on external resources.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a required body whose structure is undefined in both the schema and the description, the tool cannot be correctly invoked without external guidance. The reference to itad://guide/calling acknowledges this gap but does not fill it, leaving the description incomplete for a 5-parameter delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only '必填: body' and OAuth token sourcing, both already represented in the schema, without providing further semantics about the body structure or how to specify which notes to delete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with '[DELETE] /user/notes/v1 - Delete notes', clearly identifying the HTTP verb, endpoint, and action. It is distinct from sibling tools like user_notes_v1_get and user_notes_v1_put, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states required inputs ('必填: body') and authentication ('需要 OAuth Token'), which are basic usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this delete tool over the get/put siblings or mention alternatives, aside from what the name implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the OAuth requirement and that notes are added/edited, but it does not explain whether existing notes are overwritten, how the body is validated, what happens on partial failure, or the response format. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. It packs required body, auth, and a guide reference into a single line without excessive verbosity, though the reference to an external guide is slightly redundant and could be considered filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a PUT operation with an unstructured required body, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the body should contain or what the response will look like, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct request without additional external lookup. The external guide reference mitigates this only partially.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that body is required and repeats the OAuth token/env variable fallback, but it does not clarify the shape or content of the required body object, which is left without a type in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the endpoint path and action: "Add or edit notes" via [PUT] /user/notes/v1. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like user_notes_v1_get and user_notes_v1_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating or updating notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the GET or DELETE sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions. The OAuth requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirements and required body, but does not explain the PATCH semantics (e.g., partial update behavior), potential side effects, response format, or whether fields are overwritten. The reference to an external guide is helpful but does not compensate for the lack of inline behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and action. It efficiently packs in required parameters, authentication, and a pointer to further docs without redundancy. Perfectly sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with a required body, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks critical details about what the body should contain, expected behavior, or consequences. The reference to a guide is useful but does not make the tool self-contained enough for an agent to invoke correctly without external lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that body is required (already in schema) and specifies OAuth token sources, but does not explain the body's structure or what fields can be updated. This matches the schema's minimal information without adding significant meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as '[PATCH] /collection/copies/v1 - Update Copies', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD operations (collection_copies_v1_delete, get, post) by naming 'Update' and 'PATCH'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required body and OAuth token, and points to a guide for full calling instructions. It implies usage for updating existing copies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like POST (create) or DELETE. Absence of explicit exclusions or alternatives prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the authentication requirement and mentions a resource (itad://guide/calling) for complete instructions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, return format, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving important behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Each sentence provides useful information: the action, required field, authentication method, and a pointer to a resource for full details. There is no unnecessary fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a POST endpoint with an undefined body schema (the body property has no type or nested properties) and no output schema. The description does not explain what the body should contain or what the response looks like. The pointer to itad://guide/calling is helpful but does not make the description self-sufficient, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights that body is required and mentions the OAuth token fallback mechanism, but these details are already present in the input schema. It does not add meaningful semantics about what values the body or other parameters should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the HTTP method and endpoint ('[POST] /collection/copies/v1') and a clear action ('Add Copies'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_copies_v1_get, collection_copies_v1_delete, and collection_copies_v1_patch. However, it does not explain what a 'copy' is, leaving some ambiguity about the resource being acted on.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives usage context by stating that the body is required and that OAuth Token is needed (via oauthToken or environment variables). It also points to an external guide for full instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the usage is only implied by the 'Add Copies' action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the API key requirement, and that no required params are needed. It does not mention return format, pagination, or rate limits, but for a read-only list endpoint the disclosed details are reasonably helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint. The three sentences each carry useful information: the endpoint, the lack of required params, and the API key plus guide reference. The listing of multiple environment variable names is a bit repetitive but tolerable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple GET list tool with no required parameters and no output schema. The description provides enough to make a basic call (auth, no required params) and points to a guide for full details, but it does not explain what the response contains or any optional filters, so completeness is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (100%) with generic envelope parameters already described. The description adds that no required parameters exist, which is useful, but it does not enumerate any optional query parameters specific to the deals endpoint, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the endpoint as '[GET] /deals/v2' and labels it 'Deals List', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'games_bundles_v2' or 'games_prices_v3', so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states that no additional required parameters exist and that an API key is needed, along with a pointer to the 'itad://guide/calling' resource for full instructions. It does not explain when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is present but limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and authentication requirement (API key), but does not describe the response format, error behavior, data scope, or any side effects. For a stats endpoint, this is a significant gap beyond what the schema offers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose. It efficiently communicates required parameter, auth, and a pointer to full docs. The text is slightly dense due to the mix of Chinese and environment variable list, but every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the essential invocation details (method, resource, required param, auth) and points to a guide for full instructions. However, it lacks any description of the return value or data structure, especially with no output schema available. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the response content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that query.appid is required, which is already in the schema. It adds no extra meaning about appid's format, valid values, or how the parameter affects the request, so it does not exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states '[GET] /internal/players/v1 - Number of Players Statistics', providing a clear verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling internal_* tools (e.g., internal_rates_v1, internal_reviews_v1) by specifying it returns player count statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates a required query parameter (appid) and API key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage context is implied: use when needing number of players statistics for a given appid, but no alternative/comparison guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses authentication requirements (API key environment variables) and states that no extra required parameters are needed, which is useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, return format, error behavior, or idempotency, though the pointer to itad://guide/calling partially compensates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and includes only essential information: purpose, auth requirements, and a documentation reference. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it provides the endpoint, purpose, auth details, and a pointer to full documentation. It lacks a description of the response structure or behavioral specifics, but the guide reference fills some gaps. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 5 generic optional parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a clarification that no additional required parameters exist, which is helpful, but it does not explain the individual schema parameters beyond their generic 'query object' or 'headers object' descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a GET endpoint for 'Conversion Rates' with the path '/internal/rates/v1', which distinguishes it from other internal_* tools (e.g., earlyaccess, hltb, reviews). However, it relies on the name and path for specificity and does not elaborate on what 'conversion rates' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling endpoints. The description notes that no additional required parameters exist and points to a guide resource, but it does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about optional API keys and environment variable names, and points to a guide resource. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or request body structure, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, packing method, endpoint, purpose, required/optional fields, and a guide reference into two sentences. Every element earns its place and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the guide reference, the description is incomplete for a POST endpoint with a required body and no output schema. It omits crucial details like body structure and response format, which the agent needs to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are generic boilerplate (e.g., 'body' is just 'request body'). The description adds no real parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies. It does not explain what to put in the body or query parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Lookup ITAD game IDs by title' with the HTTP method and endpoint path. This clearly identifies the tool's specific function and differentiates it from siblings like lookup_shopid_gid_v1 or games_search_v1.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required body and optional API key, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as games_lookup_v1 or games_search_v1. There are no explicit use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses required OAuth token via parameter or environment variables, and states that no additional required parameters exist, which is useful. However, it omits response format, pagination, or side-effect behavior (though GET implies read-only), and the pointer to an external guide partially compensates but does not fully disclose behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the method, path, and purpose. It efficiently includes auth requirements and a reference to complete instructions without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, purpose, auth, and parameter expectations. However, it lacks details on the response payload or any filtering options, relying on an external guide resource, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that no extra required parameters exist and by explaining the OAuth token fallback to environment variables, which enriches the schema's simple parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation as a GET request to /notifications/v1 to list notifications. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like notifications_waitlist_v1_get or notifications_read_v1_put, so it lacks distinct sibling awareness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notifications_waitlist_v1_get or notifications_read_all_v1_put. The note about no additional required parameters and OAuth token are prerequisites, not usage context, leaving the agent without direction on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that an API Key is required (listing environment variables) and that no extra required parameters exist. However, it does not describe the response structure, pagination, rate limits, or what data the endpoint returns. The pointer to 'itad://guide/calling' adds useful context but is an external reference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—two short sentences. It front-loads the HTTP method and path, then provides essential auth info and a pointer to fuller documentation. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and generic parameter schema, the description provides insufficient context. It fails to explain what the endpoint returns, the meaning of the stats, or how query parameters might affect results. Reliance on an external resource for complete calling instructions leaves the agent under-informed for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters but they are generic transport fields (body, query, headers, etc.) with minimal descriptions. The description adds the important clarification that no extra required parameters exist, but it does not explain any optional query parameters or their meanings, leaving the agent to rely on the external guide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the HTTP method (GET) and resource path (/stats/most-waitlisted/v1), and the label 'Most Waitlisted' clearly conveys the resource being accessed. This differentiates it from sibling stats endpoints like 'stats_most_collected_v1' and 'stats_most_popular_v1'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'no extra required parameters' and API key requirements, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'stats_waitlist_v1' or 'stats_most_popular_v1'. There are no exclusions or scenario-based recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the authentication requirement (OAuth token or env vars) and points to an external guide resource for full details. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, error behavior, or side effects beyond the implied read-only nature of GET.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the endpoint, and conveys essential auth info in two sentences. It is appropriately sized for a simple GET endpoint, though the Chinese text is somewhat dense and could be more structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward list endpoint, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource, auth requirements, and points to a guide for full instructions. However, it lacks details about expected response structure, possible query parameters, or error scenarios, which would be important for an agent without prior knowledge. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with generic descriptions for body, query, headers, and pathParams, plus a detailed description for oauthToken. The description adds minimal value by stating 'no additional required parameters' and reaffirming the oauthToken/env var fallback, but it does not explain specific query parameters or their meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a GET request to /waitlist/games/v1 for 'Games in Waitlist', specifying both the HTTP verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like waitlist_games_v1_put and waitlist_games_v1_delete by implying a read-only operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that no additional required parameters exist and mentions the OAuth token prerequisite, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notifications_waitlist_v1_get or waitlist_games_v1_put). There is no exclusions or scenario-based direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and that no params are required and no auth is needed, which gives some transparency about side effects and access. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, or what the returned shops contain, and it defers to an external resource for complete behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact line that fronts the method and resource, and then provides essential call notes (params, auth) plus a pointer for further details. No redundant wording; every segment serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given its simplicity (no required params, no output schema), the description provides a workable starting point but lacks clarity on the response content or what constitutes a 'shop'. The reference to itad://guide/calling suggests gaps are filled externally, but this is a weaker substitute for explicit details, making the description moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the property descriptions are generic HTTP fields (body, query, headers, etc.). The description reinforces that no extra required parameters exist, which matches the schema. However, it adds no specifics about what query or path parameters might affect the response, so the meaning is not deeply enhanced beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '[GET] /service/shops/v1 - Get Shops', which clearly identifies the verb (GET) and resource (shops list). However, it doesn't elaborate on what shops are or how this differs from sibling tools like lookup_shopid_gid_v1, leaving some ambiguity about its exact purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes '无额外必填参数' (no additional required parameters) and '无需鉴权' (no authentication required), which are useful prerequisites. It points to itad://guide/calling for full instructions, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude any use cases, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation requires an OAuth token and a body, and points to an external guide for full calling instructions. However, it does not disclose effects (e.g., whether it overwrites, response format, or idempotency), which is a notable gap for a mutation-like PUT.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three short sentences with the most critical information (method, endpoint, purpose, required body, auth) front-loaded. It does not waste words, and the pointer to an external resource is a legitimate way to keep it brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simplicity, the tool has nested objects and no output schema, so the description must explain what 'body' should contain and what the response will be. It does neither; it only says 'Add to Collection' and directs to a guide. For an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would need to know how to construct the body, which is entirely absent, making the description incomplete for real-world use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats that 'body' is required and reiterates the OAuth token environment variables that are already in the schema. The 'body' parameter itself lacks structural details in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the HTTP method and endpoint, and uses the action 'Add to Collection' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like collection_games_v1_get or collection_games_v1_delete. The verb 'Add' combined with the resource name leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one wants to add a game to a collection, and notes required body and OAuth token. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or describe when not to use it, relying on the action verb for differentiation. The pointer to a guide resource provides additional context but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the API key requirement and directs to a guide resource, which is useful. Yet it omits details about response format, error behavior, or side effects, leaving transparency incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences covering the endpoint, required input, auth, and a reference for more details. It is efficient, though mixing Chinese and English may be a minor readability issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET endpoint, the description provides the method, path, required parameter, auth, and a pointer to a guide. However, it lacks any mention of the expected response structure or possible error cases, making it not fully self-contained without the guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides comprehensive parameter descriptions (coverage 100%), including the required query.channel field. The description only repeats the channel requirement and adds API key environment variables, contributing minimal additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a GET request returning the current Twitch stream for a channel, naming both the HTTP method and the resource path. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on game/deal data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It specifies the required query parameter and API key, and points to a guide resource for complete instructions. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method and OAuth requirement, and points to a guide resource, but does not mention return format, error behavior, or side effects (though as a GET, side effects are unlikely).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, with the core purpose in the title and requirements in one additional sentence. The reference to 'itad://guide/calling' is useful but slightly redundant, making it efficient but not perfectly minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple GET with a required id and auth, but no output schema or usage context is provided. The description covers basic requirements and points to a guide, but does not describe the response shape or when to prefer this over sibling notification tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, including the required id in query and OAuth token environment variables. The description's mention of 'query: id' and oauthToken adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states '[GET] /notifications/waitlist/v1 - Waitlist notification detail', providing a specific HTTP verb, endpoint, and scope. The required 'query: id' is mentioned, clearly distinguishing this detail-fetch tool from sibling list/update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the required 'query: id' and OAuth token requirement, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like notifications_list_v1_get or notifications_read_v1_put. There is no explicit when-not or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions OAuth token requirements and that no extra required parameters are needed, which is useful. It also points to a resource (itad://guide/calling) for full instructions. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any rate limits or pagination, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, leading with the HTTP method and resource, then a short purpose, followed by parameter and authentication info. Every sentence contributes value without fluff, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains, but it only says 'List Copies' without detailing the response structure or pagination. The pointer to a guide resource helps, but considering the tool's simplicity and missing return details, the description is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because every parameter has an 'optional' label, but these are generic (e.g., 'request body (optional)'). The tool description adds that no extra required parameters exist, which clarifies optionality, but does not elaborate on query parameters or other nuanced semantics. The schema already does most of the work, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '[GET] /collection/copies/v1 - List Copies', specifying the HTTP method and resource. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling operations like collection_copies_v1_delete or collection_copies_v1_post, which are clearly different actions on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing copies when calling the GET endpoint, and notes that no extra required parameters exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the resource and method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the authentication requirement (API key via environment variables) and explicitly states there are no additional required parameters, which is useful. It also points to an external guide for full calling instructions. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Since it is a GET request, the behavior is likely read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the endpoint and resource name, then quickly covers required auth and param details. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no waste. It is concise while still conveying the key facts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple GET endpoint with no output schema. The description lacks an explanation of the response format or contents, which would be expected given the absence of an output schema. It does point to an external guide for full instructions, which partially compensates, but the description itself is not fully self-contained. For a tool with low complexity, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with generic descriptions for standard HTTP request parts (body, query, headers, etc.). The description adds that there are no additional required parameters, which aligns with the schema's 0 required parameters. However, it does not provide any tool-specific parameter details or examples. Since the schema already covers the generic parameters, the description's added value is minimal, warranting a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint path (/internal/early-access/v1), and the resource scope ('Early Access Games'). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like internal_hltb_v1 or internal_rates_v1, which deal with different internal resources. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that no additional required parameters are needed and that an API key is required, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The usage is implied by the resource name but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only discloses the HTTP method, required/optional fields, and a reference to an external guide. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond the optional API key. This is a moderate level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a terse endpoint notation and lists required/optional info efficiently. The mixed English/Chinese wording slightly disrupts flow but does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the body structure, the meaning of 'game IDs on shop', or return values, and it defers to an external guide. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional resources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it confirms body is required and mentions the API key, and the phrase 'by ITAD game IDs' hints that the body contains those IDs. However, the schema descriptions themselves are trivial (e.g., 'request body'), so the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Lookup game IDs on shop by ITAD game IDs.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_gid_shopid_v1, which likely performs the reverse mapping. The endpoint format further reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by listing required parameters (path: shopId, body) and optional API key, and points to a resource for full instructions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and required fields give a clear indication of when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral aspects: OAuth Token is required and body is mandatory. However, it does not detail the exact destructive effect (what is deleted or irreversibility) or what the body should contain, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, packing the endpoint, purpose, required body, auth method, and a documentation pointer into a few short clauses. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and nested objects with no output schema, the description is sparse but includes auth requirements and a link to full docs. However, it lacks guidance on constructing the body and what to expect in response, making it only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond confirming 'body' is required. It does not explain the structure of body, query, or headers, providing minimal additional meaning over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '[DELETE] /waitlist/games/v1 - Delete from Waitlist', specifying the verb, resource, and operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like waitlist_games_v1_get and waitlist_games_v1_put by indicating it is the delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the endpoint and name ('Delete from Waitlist'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. The mention of itad://guide/calling for full instructions is about invocation, not use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses OAuth token requirements, the absence of required parameters, and points to an external guide for full details. However, it omits behavioral specifics such as response format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a read operation with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the endpoint and purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the purpose, parameter requirement, authentication note, and pointer to further documentation are all concise and directly useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple GET with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the essential invocation details (endpoint, no required params, auth) and provides a pointer to the full guide. It does not explain return values, but for a straightforward 'Get notes' endpoint with a linked guide, this is adequate, though slightly incomplete without any output description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add clarity by stating '无额外必填参数' (no additional required parameters) and mentions the oauthToken environment variable fallback, but this largely duplicates the existing schema descriptions for oauthToken and the generic optional body/query/headers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the HTTP method and resource: '[GET] /user/notes/v1 - Get notes'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like user_notes_v1_put and user_notes_v1_delete by presenting the GET operation explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the GET method and 'Get notes', and notes that no additional required parameters exist. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, relying on the tool name and method for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and points to a documentation resource for full instructions, but does not describe response format, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple GET, this is moderately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, followed by auth and documentation pointers. The mixed language and parallel clauses are slightly cluttered, but every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description only says 'Get all Categories' without specifying the response structure or pagination. The pointer to a documentation resource helps, but the description alone is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes each parameter, but the description adds important semantics: it explicitly states no extra required parameters and clarifies that oauthToken can be replaced by environment variables. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves all categories via a GET endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for creating, patching, or deleting groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: it's a read operation for all categories, no extra required parameters, and requires OAuth token with fallback environment variables. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![isthereanydeal-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-repo-save/isthereanydeal-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-repo-save/isthereanydeal-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![isthereanydeal-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-repo-save/isthereanydeal-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ai-repo-save/isthereanydeal-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ai-repo-save/isthereanydeal-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server