Sports Trading Card Agent

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

No annotations provided. Description carries full burden and successfully discloses behavioral logic: it performs a comparative analysis (raw vs graded values), factors in marketplace fees and turnaround time, and returns a clear recommendation. Minor gap: doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., data availability) or whether it performs real-time market queries.

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?

Uses efficient docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by concise logic explanation. Every sentence provides value—no repetition of tool name or tautology.

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?

Complete despite 0% schema coverage. Description covers input requirements, processing logic (what factors are compared), and summarizes return values (detailed ROI analysis with recommendation). Since output schema exists (per context signals), the Returns summary is appropriate without needing exhaustive field listing.

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%, requiring full compensation. Description excellently documents all three parameters: card_query includes examples and a critical constraint ('Do NOT include grading info'), grading_company lists valid options and default, expected_grade provides format examples and default.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Calculate') + resource ('sports card') + specific scope (grading ROI comparison). Distinguishes from siblings like card_price_lookup (simple pricing) and card_market_analysis (trends) by specifying this evaluates the financial viability of the grading process itself.

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?

Clearly establishes when to use (when deciding whether to pay for professional grading) and what factors it considers (costs, turnaround time, fees). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named sibling alternatives, though the specific scope makes misuse unlikely.

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