get_shop_infoReturn an overview of the supported shops, including their shipping cost tiers, free-shipping thresholds, and supported countries (DE and AT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Filter output to a specific country (optional — omit for both DE and AT) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shops | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the output content (shipping tiers, thresholds, countries) and scope (optional country filter), which is beyond what annotations convey.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose key details without any fluff. Every word serves the goal of describing the tool's function.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the high-level purpose and key parameters sufficiently. A minor gap is lack of mention of the output schema or example, but overall adequate for a read 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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter. The description reinforces that DE and AT are supported but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 returns an overview of supported shops, listing specific contents (shipping cost tiers, free-shipping thresholds, supported countries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on products, prices, or shipping breakdowns.
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 when to use (to get shop overview) but does not explicitly state when not to use or how it differs from alternatives like get_shipping_breakdown or search_product. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.
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.
The tools 'find_alternatives_for_product' and 'get_best_price' have nearly identical descriptions, both retrieving price and availability for a product by EAN. This creates confusion and likely causes misselection. Other tools are distinct, but this overlap significantly reduces clarity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_best_price, resolve_product, search_product). No mixing of conventions or irregular naming.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a bike parts price comparison server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the shopping workflow, and the count is neither excessive nor insufficient.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: searching, resolving URLs, looking up by EAN, obtaining shipping info, and optimizing cart splits. The only minor gap is the redundancy between two nearly identical tools, but no essential operations are missing.