get_market_routeGet the public page and tester-interest status for a supported country; does not decide farm eligibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying it returns public page and tester-interest status and explicitly states it does not decide farm eligibility, consistent with 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and clearly structured.
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 single parameter with enum and rich annotations, the description covers the basics but does not describe the response format or what exactly a 'market route' entails. Without an output schema, more detail would be helpful for completeness.
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 should compensate. It only mentions 'supported country' without elaborating on the country parameter or its effects. The enum values in the schema provide some clarity but the description adds no extra meaning.
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 it retrieves public page and tester-interest status for a supported country, and distinguishes it by noting it does not decide farm eligibility. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_public_summary.
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?
Implicit usage is clear from the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The negative constraint (does not decide farm eligibility) provides some context but not enough for a higher score.
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: camera requirements, market routes, product summary, safety limits, and knowledge search. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Four tools use the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_camera_requirements, get_market_route, get_public_summary, get_safety_limits) and one uses search_public_knowledge, which fits the same style.
Five tools is ideal for this server's scope—covering key public information areas without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only access to public knowledge: rules, routes, status, safety, and search. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.