Search current offers by free-text query, category, and/or place. Returns active offers with title, pricing (including the reference price a discount is measured against), validity window, and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name | |
| query | No | Free-text search over title, description, and product | |
| country | No | Country name or code | |
| category | No | Offer category, e.g. restaurant, beauty, event |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), description adds that returned offers are active, includes pricing reference point, validity window, and location. No contradiction.
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 main action. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.
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?
Since no output schema, description includes return fields. Covers filters and outputs. However, misses pagination or ordering details that a search tool might need.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description mentions free-text query, category, and place (city/country) but adds little beyond what's in schema. Baseline 3 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?
Clearly states the tool searches current offers with multiple filters (free-text, category, place) and specifies return fields (title, pricing, validity, location). Distinguishes from sibling tools offers_accept and offers_get which handle accepting or retrieving specific offers.
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?
Provides context on when to use the tool (searching offers) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling distinction is clear from purpose.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: search, detail retrieval, and claiming an offer. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'offers_<verb>' (accept, find, get), making naming predictable.
Three tools are minimal but exactly cover the core operations for an offers system: search, view details, and redeem. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers search, read, and claim actions. Missing update or delete for offers, but these may be outside the user-facing scope. Generally complete for the domain.
