get_shipping_optionsAvailable shipping methods for the current cart/address, with price and ETA (free over the threshold).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| free_shipping_from | No | Subtotal (USD) at which shipping becomes free. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return information (price, ETA) and mentioning 'free over the threshold', which goes 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 of 14 words, front-loaded with key information. Every word is useful; no unnecessary content. Very concise.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It effectively communicates what is returned (price, ETA) and the context (current cart/address). No missing information for a simple retrieval 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 retrieves available shipping methods for the current cart/address, with price and ETA. The verb 'get' is implicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_shipping_method, but the purpose is clear.
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 this tool should be used before setting a shipping method, but it lacks explicit guidance on when/when-not to use it or alternatives. The context 'current cart/address' is stated but no exclusions.
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.