get_saved_addressesReturn shipping addresses the user used in past orders — offer these to a returning buyer instead of asking again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | No | Up to 5 distinct addresses from past orders, newest first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the context of returning past orders but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. No wasted words.
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 retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and usage. It is complete enough for the agent to select and use correctly.
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?
There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 returns shipping addresses from past orders for returning buyers. The verb 'Return' and resource 'shipping addresses the user used in past orders' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_shipping_address.
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 implies when to use (for returning buyers to avoid re-entering address) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among siblings.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct; slight overlap exists between cart_update and set_cart_quantity (both modify cart lines), and between remove_promo and cart_remove (different domains). Other groups (studio, designer) are well-separated.
Consistent use of verb_noun pattern for most tools, with noun prefixes (designer_, studio_) grouping related tools. No mixed conventions or obscure abbreviations.
31 tools is high for a single server, covering shopping, studio, and designer domains. Some tools like cart_update and set_cart_quantity seem redundant, pushing count beyond optimal.
Core workflows (search, cart, checkout, generation, designer submission) are covered. Minor gaps: no edit/delete for designs or orders, and no tool to manage saved addresses beyond viewing.