get_top_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the sorting dimensions (current price, seven-day growth). It doesn't reveal what data is returned, whether results include historical data, pagination characteristics, error behavior, or any access/rate limitations. For a data-access tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. However, it's so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than crafted conciseness.

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 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and 3 parameters with unclear semantics (no enums documented), the description is insufficiently complete. It has an output schema which helps for return values, but the input semantics and behavioral expectations are under-specified for a tool that has many closely-related siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the metric options ('price' or 'seven-day growth') which loosely maps to the 'metric' param, but it doesn't explain 'limit', 'source', or valid enum values for metric/source. The description fails to clarify what values these parameters accept or how they interact.

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 states the tool gets Pro top cards by current price or historical seven-day growth, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search/fetch individual cards or sets. However, it's somewhat ambiguous what 'Pro' means and what 'top cards' precisely returns, and it doesn't differentiate from the many other card-lookup tools like get_card_prices or get_set_cards.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_card_prices, search_cards, or summarize_card_value. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The phrase 'Pro' suggests an app tier but this is unexplained.

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