Use when an agent needs to browse SENTn's opportunity intelligence library, retrieve a ranked page of opportunities, optionally filter by an existing category, or continue pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that results are ranked, that filtering is optional, and that pagination is supported, all of which are useful. It does not mention response format, default behavior, or whether results are read-only, though 'retrieve' and 'browse' strongly imply a read operation.
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?
One concise sentence front-loads the primary use case and packs in the ranked-page, category filtering, and pagination behaviors. It is slightly dense but contains no filler or repetition.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to fully guide a correct call. It explains the main scenario but leaves important details unspecified: what the response looks like, whether limit has a default, how cursor is obtained, and how category values are formatted. A few clarifying clauses would substantially improve completeness.
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 by explaining the parameters. It only alludes to category and pagination in prose, but does not clarify the meaning of limit, cursor, or their interaction. An agent cannot confidently know what values to supply for these three undocumented 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'browse SENTn's opportunity intelligence library' and 'retrieve a ranked page of opportunities.' It also captures the distinct capabilities of filtering by category and paginating, making it reasonably distinguishable from the sibling get_opportunity even without an explicit comparison.
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?
It opens with 'Use when an agent needs to browse,' which gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it never says when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling get_opportunity, so the agent is left to infer the boundary between searching/browsing and fetching a single opportunity.
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 two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific opportunity by known ID, while the other searches/browses the library. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: get_opportunity and search_opportunities. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but not unreasonable for a read-only opportunity lookup and search service. It sits on the thin side of the ideal range.
For an opportunity intelligence library, search and detail retrieval cover the primary read-only workflows, including filtering and pagination. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated endpoint to browse available categories, but the core surface is functional.