flipzi_list_gamesList the trading card games Flipzi covers and retrieve their IDs for use as the game parameter in price, sold comps, history, or movers queries.
Lists the trading card games Flipzi covers (use the returned ids as game elsewhere). Available on the free plan. Cost: 1 unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context that annotations cannot convey: free-plan availability and a cost of 1 unit, which matters for an agent budgeting calls.
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?
A single compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the two metadata facts (plan, cost) appended without padding. Nothing here is redundant with the title or schema.
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, but the description compensates by naming what is returned (the games covered) and how the return value is consumed (ids used as `game`). No pagination or result-shape caveats, but for a trivial zero-argument enumerator the coverage is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless listing call.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (lists the trading card games Flipzi covers), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like flipzi_list_sets or flipzi_list_set_cards, which share the same 'list' pattern, so an agent gets no explicit pointing signal.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the entry point for discovering game ids. The parenthetical 'use the returned ids as `game` elsewhere' does give real chaining guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling list tools or any prerequisite/order-of-calls advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.