get_set_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'With ambiguity preserved' hints that results may be ambiguous or multi-valued, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose response shape, pagination, rate limits, or what 'Pro card-price variant' means concretely despite an output schema existing.

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 a single concise sentence that gets to the point efficiently. Every word earns its place, though the 'with ambiguity preserved' clause could be expanded slightly for clarity without bloating the description.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is covered structurally. However, the 'source' parameter is undocumented, and the meaning of 'ambiguity preserved' is never elaborated. For a 2-parameter tool with only one parameter implied in the description, this is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps given zero schema-coverage on parameters.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'a set' which maps to set_code_or_id, but the second parameter 'source' (default 'both') is completely unexplained. There's no clarification about what values source accepts or what 'both' refers to, leaving the agent without guidance for half the parameters.

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 verb+resource: 'Get every Pro card-price variant in a set', making the function's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from price-related siblings like get_card_prices and compare_card_prices by focusing on 'every variant' in a set, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 vs alternatives like get_card_prices, get_set, or compare_card_prices. The phrase 'with ambiguity preserved' hints at behavior but gives no context on when this is the appropriate choice or when to avoid it.

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