Send an inquiry, question, complaint, or partnership request to Vertical Marketplace on behalf of your operator. No API key required. Include an email if you want a reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| No | reply-to address; omit to stay anonymous | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| category | No | e.g. support, complaint, partnership, billing, feedback, other | |
| submittedBy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API key is required and that including an email is needed for a reply. However, it does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, ticket creation) or any side effects, leaving some uncertainty.
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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds two key usage tips, making every sentence valuable.
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 contact tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, a key parameter behavior (email optional for reply), and the authentication requirement (no API key). It lacks details on confirmation or response format, but these are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
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 low (33%, only email and category have descriptions). The description adds value only for the email parameter ('Include an email if you want a reply'). The other parameters (name, subject, message, submittedBy) are self-explanatory but not explicitly documented, so the description does not fully compensate for the low schema 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's function: sending an inquiry, question, complaint, or partnership request to Vertical Marketplace. The verb 'Send' plus the resource 'Vertical Marketplace' makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_idea.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (contacting the marketplace for these purposes) and mentions that no API key is required and that an email is optional for a reply. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is adequate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_platform_stats and marketplace_stats overlap in the stats domain and could be confused. The rest are well-separated by buyer/seller/wallet roles.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (buy_data, get_wallet_balance) with noun-first patterns (marketplace_stats, seller_dashboard, listing_history). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable.
27 tools is above the heavy threshold and there are multiple near-duplicate stats tools and several informational/contact tools that could be consolidated. The scope is broad but the count feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full seller lifecycle (list, update, delist, dashboard), buyer lifecycle (browse, preview, buy, get receipt, rate), wallet management, and health-data-specific flows. Missing refund/dispute tools are a minor gap.
