Sports Trading Card Agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It excellently documents the output behavior (arbitrage detection, spread calculation, actionable insights) but omits operational details such as data freshness, rate limits, error behaviors, or whether this performs real-time scraping versus cached data.

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 Args/Returns structure is clear and front-loaded. While verbose for a single-parameter tool, the detail is justified by the complex output. The examples and return value list earn their place by providing necessary specificity.

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 the single parameter and complex output, the description is complete. It compensates for the minimal schema, explains the parameter thoroughly, and details the comprehensive output. Minor gap: lacks explicit sibling differentiation guidelines.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (the 'query' property lacks a description field), but the tool description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics: explicit examples ('2024 Panini Prizm...'), format guidance (include year, brand, player name), and success criteria ('for best results').

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 a specific action ('Full market analysis') on a specific resource ('sports card'), and details specific aspects (price trends, buy/sell spread, arbitrage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_price_lookup (simple lookup vs. comprehensive analysis) and card_investment_advisor (data analysis vs. investment advice) by scope and output depth.

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?

While the detailed return values imply this is for deep market analysis versus simple price checks, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like card_price_lookup or vintage_card_analysis. The distinction is left to inference.

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