Cross-category feed of design patents that just became (or are about to become) free to make — i.e. fresh off-patent private-label opportunities, soonest-expiry first, already recall- and supplier-screened.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (default 30). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and pre-screening but omits other behavioral details such as pagination behavior, data freshness, or update frequency. It adequately alerts that results are for design patents only.
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-crafted sentence that places the most critical information upfront ('Cross-category feed of design patents that just became free to make'). Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or clutter.
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 feed tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the feed contains, its ordering, and its screening. It could be improved by noting the return format or field names, but overall it is fairly complete.
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% for the single parameter 'limit', which has a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.
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 specifies a resource (design patents), an action (feeds becoming free to make), and ordering (soonest-first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'category_opportunity_report' by being cross-category and pre-screened.
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 usage for obtaining expiring patents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.
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: listing categories, providing a cross-category feed, generating a paid report for a category, and screening a single patent. No overlap in functionality.
Tool names use a mix of patterns: verb_noun (list_categories, screen_patent), noun_noun (category_opportunity_report), and adjective (newly_expirable). While each name is descriptive, the lack of a consistent convention reduces predictability.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its niche domain of design patent expiration tracking. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core workflow: listing categories, viewing expiring patents, generating a detailed report, and screening individual patents. Missing a direct tool to list all patents in a category without the paid report, but the critical paths are supported.