Retrieve Taiwan Super Lotto 649 (大樂透) draw data for a specific year and month. Use it to inspect monthly lottery results by passing integer year and month.
Get lottery, super lotto 649 (大樂透), data in the specified month Args: year: target year, e.g. 2024 month: target month, e.g. 5
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any ordering, pagination, or missing-data behavior for the month range.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and the Args block second. The Args block largely restates the schema and could be trimmed, but there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a query tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter ranges and any behavioral context, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies example values (year: 2024, month: 5), which add some meaning, but gives no valid ranges, formatting rules, or timezone context for the two parameters.
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 ('Get'), the resource (lottery 649 / 大樂透 data), and the scope (a specified month). However, the parenthetical '(大樂透)' alongside the sibling 'get_super_lotto_month' creates naming ambiguity about whether this is the same lottery as the sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the three sibling lottery tools (get_super_lotto_month, get_daily_cash_month, get_lotto_4d_month). The agent must infer the distinction purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.