marketplace_listings_searchSearch the Epinu marketplace for equipment, services, and assets. Returns summaries only; call marketplace_listing_get for detailed packets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| maxPrice | No | ||
| subcategory | No | ||
| availabilityType | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes | ||
| total_returned | Yes | ||
| dropped_invalid_count | No |
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. It notes the summary-only return behavior and references pagination indirectly via the cursor parameter, but does not state rate limits, auth requirements, result ordering, or whether maxPrice/availabilityType affect filtering in any way the schema doesn't already imply. The summary-only distinction is genuinely valuable but largely the whole of its behavioral content.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second delivers critical behavioral guidance (summary-only + pointer to the detail tool). Extremely efficient and front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no parameter-level context, the description leaves the agent to guess about availabilityType semantics, subcategory usage, and cursor pagination details. This creates a moderate completeness gap despite the good summary-vs-detail flow guidance.
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% and there are 7 parameters with none required, so the description must compensate. It does establish the marketplace domain that gives query/category/subcategory meaning, but it provides no parameter-specific context — no explanation of what 'category' vs 'subcategory' mean, what 'availabilityType' values are valid, or how maxPrice interacts. The marketplace framing adds context beyond the bare schema but doesn't meaningfully document individual 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?
Clear verb+resource ('Search the Epinu marketplace') with an explicit scope (equipment, services, assets). Distinguishes from siblings by establishing this is the marketplace search, separate from projects_search, and by naming the companion detail tool (marketplace_listing_get). Falls just short of 5 because it doesn't enumerate the full breadth of categories beyond the three listed.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use context by stating it returns summaries only and directing callers to marketplace_listing_get for detailed packets, establishing a complementary search-then-fetch flow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare against the other sibling search tools (search, projects_search), so exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The search tools (search, projects_search, marketplace_listings_search) overlap significantly—search is explicitly an 'additive alias' over the other two, making them partially redundant. fetch, getting_started, and marketplace_listings_search are fairly distinct, but the search trio creates ambiguity about which to call for a given query.
Mixed conventions: projects_search and marketplace_listings_search follow verb_noun, but search, fetch, and getting_started are single words/varied patterns. Names are descriptive enough but lack a uniform verb_noun structure across the whole set.
Five tools is a reasonable size for a search/discovery-oriented server. The count feels slightly thin given the mention of several underlying operations (projects_get_deep_dive, marketplace_listing_get), but it's within a sensible scope for the apparent purpose.
Read-side coverage is decent: search, detail-fetch, and overview docs are all present. However, the server references get_deep_dive and get operations that aren't directly exposed as standalone tools, and there's no way to perform any writes/updates, leaving the surface feel like incomplete proxies for a broader API.