search_listingsSearch live Bids44 marketplace listings. Input: query + optional category, city, maxPrice. Returns up to 10 listings with title, price, city, condition, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| maxPrice | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Search'), returns up to 10 results, and lists output fields. However, no mention is made of ordering, pagination, or potential behaviors like partial matches.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with input/output summary. Every sentence is necessary and no extraneous content.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, inputs, output fields, and result limit. Missing aspects like sorting or pagination are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by listing the parameters (query, category, city, maxPrice) and indicating that query is required. It does not provide detailed semantics or examples beyond the schema property names.
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 searches live Bids44 marketplace listings, specifying that it returns a list of up to 10 items with given fields. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_listing' (single listing) via the plural 'listings' and search verb, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_listing' or 'get_resale_price'. The description only implies its use for searching listings, lacking when-not or exclusion cues.
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 distinct purpose: retrieving a specific listing by ID, getting a resale price for a product, and searching listings. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_listing, get_resale_price, search_listings). No mix of conventions.
3 tools is slightly below average but still reasonable for a read-only marketplace server focusing on search, detail, and price lookup. It does not feel too sparse given the narrow scope.
The tool set covers only read operations (search, get detail, get price). It lacks any ability to create, update, or delete listings, which are core marketplace operations. This is a significant gap if the server aims to support full marketplace interactions.