tcg_collection_value_with_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds behavioral detail: it joins collection cards with pricing snapshots, matches grades, and tracks unpriced cards. It also notes dependency on snapshot freshness, which is valuable 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 three short sentences: purpose, logic, and maintenance advice. It is front-loaded with the core function, avoids redundancy, and every sentence adds value. No wasted 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 an empty input schema (no parameters), safety annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, output clues (unpriced_count), and dependency on pricing snapshots. It is complete for a read-only valuation view.

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 input schema defines a single required 'params' object with no properties, meaning the tool takes no user parameters. With zero parameters to describe, the description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 is raised to 5 because no explanation is needed.

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 computes 'Cost basis + live market value across the collection,' specifying it looks up the most recent pricing snapshot per card, matching grade. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcg_collection_value (likely without market data) and tcg_pricing_snapshot (which captures snapshots).

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 explains that cards without pricing attachments or snapshots are counted in 'unpriced_count,' and advises running tcg_pricing_snapshot periodically to keep data fresh. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it provides clear context on prerequisites and maintenance.

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