Fetch one full structured comparison (items with scores, sub-scores, per-criterion values, badges, sources, sourced/estimate flags, freshness). Neutral ranking, never paid. Data is localized to the requested lang/country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 2-letter language code. Default: en. | |
| slug | Yes | Comparison slug (from search_comparisons). | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code. Default: US. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data freshness, sourcing flags, localization, and impartiality ('neutral ranking, never paid'). Does not discuss errors or permissions, but adequate for a read-only fetch.
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 the key action and result, and the second sentence provides critical behavioral context. No wasted words.
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 fetch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, neutrality, and localization. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error behavior, but not critical.
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 coverage is 100%, and description adds 'localization' context but no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a 'full structured comparison' with specific components listed, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it retrieves a single comparison by slug.
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 implicitly suggests use after obtaining a slug (from search_comparisons), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The neutral ranking and localization hint at appropriate contexts.
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 distinct purpose: search to find comparisons, get to retrieve details, and list categories for browsing. No overlap.
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case naming: get_comparison, list_categories, search_comparisons.
Three tools is minimal but adequate for a read-only comparison catalog. Slightly thin but still reasonable.
Covers search, retrieval, and category listing, but missing a way to list all comparisons within a category without a specific search query.