Status and results of an A2A Finder scan started with start_a2a_finder_scan. Returns progress % and, once complete, the profitable cross-marketplace flips found (per ASIN, per country).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (status/retrieval) and describes return value, but lacks explicit statement that it is non-destructive or any authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple status tool.
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, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value. Efficient and clear.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what an agent needs: it returns progress and results, and is tied to a specific scan process. Complete for its complexity.
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% (no parameter descriptions), but description adds context by explaining that job_id is from start_a2a_finder_scan. This provides functional meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition, partly compensating for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns 'Status and results of an A2A Finder scan', specifying it provides progress percentage and, upon completion, profitable cross-marketplace flips per ASIN and per country. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like start_a2a_finder_scan (which initiates the scan) and get_a2a_finder_jobs (which lists jobs).
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?
Explicitly links to start_a2a_finder_scan, indicating it should be used after initiating a scan. However, does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar status checking (e.g., get_a2a_finder_jobs).
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.
Each tool targets a distinct data type or action (e.g., product analysis, deal types, FBA operations). Even similar-sounding tools like get_deal_results and get_oa_deals are clearly separated by domain (A2A vs OA) in descriptions. No significant overlap.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., analyse_product, create_deal_task, get_credits). The consistent 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and varied but predictable action verbs make the set easy to navigate.
At 37 tools, the set is large but covers a broad Amazon seller ecosystem (research, sourcing, FBA, deals, monitoring). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count reflects the domain's complexity without being bloated.
The tool surface covers all major seller workflows: product analysis, profit calculation, sourcing, deal discovery, storefront monitoring, FBA operations, purchase tracking, price alerts, and reconciliation. No obvious gaps for core tasks.
