list_dealsUse this when the user asks about discounts, promo codes or deals on digital products. Lists the active offers published by makers on uneed.best, each attached to the product it applies to (name, slug, URL, category). Optionally filter by category. Use get_product on a deal's slug for the full product profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category slug or exact name (see list_categories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds context about what is returned (name, slug, URL, category) and optional filtering, which is useful 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?
Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and additional guidance. No redundancy.
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?
Simple tool (1 optional param) with all necessary information: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and relation to sibling tools.
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 100% for the single parameter. Description adds that filtering is optional and references list_categories for format, complementing the schema.
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?
Clearly states it lists active deals/discounts on digital products, specific to uneed.best. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product by noting that each deal is attached to a product.
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 says 'Use this when the user asks about discounts, promo codes or deals on digital products.' Also provides alternative: use get_product for full product profile.
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.
There are two pairs of tools that essentially do the same thing with different output shapes: search/search_products and fetch/get_product. The descriptions try to separate them by use case, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one, making the boundaries unclear.
Tool names mix bare verbs (fetch, search) with prefixed verbs (get_, list_) and include a compound form (search_products). While readable, the naming conventions are inconsistent and lack a single predictable pattern.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable for the domain, but the redundant pairs (search vs search_products, fetch vs get_product) suggest the set is slightly padded and could be consolidated to around 7 tools.
The server covers the core read operations for a product directory: search, product details, categories, deals, recent launches, trending, and alternatives. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct category browse without search, but overall the surface is sufficient for the stated purpose.