Retrieve comprehensive data for any Pokémon by name or Pokédex number, including stats, types, abilities, and description. Use it to get exact Pokémon details for battles or analysis.
Get comprehensive data about a specific Pokemon including stats, types, abilities, and description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pokemon name or Pokedex number (e.g., "pikachu", "25", "charizard") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response contents (stats, types, abilities, description), which gives useful behavioral context, but lacks details on rate limits, errors, or data freshness.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifics without any 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits sibling differentiation, usage guidelines, and any behavioral caveats. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context would be helpful.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or Pokedex number with examples). The description does not add any further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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) and resource (Pokemon data) and enumerates the data categories returned. It's clear what it does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_pokemon or analyze_pokemon, which could also retrieve Pokemon data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pokemon, get_pokemon_list, or analyze_pokemon. There are also no prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.