metagame_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context on output details (archetypes, shares, tier, prices) and data sourcing, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 brief: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and efficiently include additional details (data sources, output specifics) without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (archetypes, shares, tier, prices). Parameter count is low and well-documented. However, it does not reference sibling tools or provide selection guidance, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (format and response_format). The description does not add semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a metagame breakdown for a given format, specifying it shows top archetypes with meta share, tier, and prices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like goldfish_metagame by mentioning data sources and details.

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 indicates data sources (MTGGoldfish primary, Spicerack fallback) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like goldfish_metagame or archetype_comparison. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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