search_codesFree-text search across brands, categories and offers, e.g. 'stock perps discount', 'esim', '20% off exchange'. Returns matching verified-code records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns 'matching verified-code records' but does not mention pagination, limits, or exact response structure.
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 and examples, no redundant information. Every word contributes.
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 simple schema (one parameter, no output schema), description adequately explains input domain and output type. Sibling tools help contextualize, but missing details like result count or language support.
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 covers the single 'query' parameter with basic description. The tool description adds semantic context with examples and scope ('brands, categories, offers'), which is valuable beyond 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?
Description clearly states 'free-text search across brands, categories and offers', a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_code' (single record) and 'list_brands' (brands only).
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 explicit examples like 'stock perps discount', 'esim', '20% off exchange' illustrating use cases, but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond 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.
Each tool serves a unique purpose: get_code retrieves a specific brand's code, list_brands enumerates all brands with optional filtering, and search_codes does free-text search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_code, list_brands, search_codes), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the server is concise and well-scoped for a code lookup service. It covers the essential query operations without excess, though adding a tool for direct code string lookup could be beneficial.
The tool set covers the main use cases: retrieving a specific code, browsing all codes, and searching. It lacks update/delete tools, but for a read-oriented API focused on finding codes, it is reasonably complete.