Стоимость пополнения Steam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it calculates cost and mentions two modes, but fails to declare whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. Since it's purely a calculation, an explicit statement of no side effects and a note on the output would be expected.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose (calculating cost) and immediately explains the key differentiator (two modes). Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns, despite there being no output schema. It also omits any details about currency defaults, authentication requirements, or potential edge cases. Given that the tool is a simple calculation, the missing output specification is a notable gap, making the description insufficient on its own for a precise invocation.

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 100%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The description adds the overall two-scenario context and clarifies the role of the 'by' parameter, but this information is also present in the schema's enum descriptions. Thus, the description adds marginal value beyond what the schema already provides, landing at the baseline for high coverage.

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 calculates the cost of Steam account top-up and explicitly distinguishes two modes of calculation. This specific verb-object pair (calculates cost) and resource (Steam account) leaves no ambiguity about its purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like order creation.

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 the two calculation modes and directs users to select the mode via the 'by' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as wata_dg_steam_order_create, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is only implied through the calculation context.

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