games_history_v2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.