Search real, currently-buyable products across the web and affiliate catalogs. Returns offers with merchant, price, url, and whether each is monetizable. Use to pick a specific offer before endorso_monetize.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to search for. | |
| country | No | ISO-2 country code. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include merchant, price, url, and monetizable flag, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, pagination, or authentication needs.
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, zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first defines the action, second specifies return fields and usage context.
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 simple parameter set (2 params, no enums, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to integrate it with a sibling tool. Minor gaps (result limits, error handling) are acceptable for a straightforward search 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The overall description adds context about the search scope and return type but does not enhance understanding of the individual parameters 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 states 'Search real, currently-buyable products across the web and affiliate catalogs' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings (balance, cart, monetize) by noting it is used to pick an offer before endorso_monetize.
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 explicitly says 'Use to pick a specific offer before endorso_monetize', providing clear context and a recommended workflow, but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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: balance for financial info, cart for generating multi-store buying links, monetize for creating affiliate links, and search for product discovery. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'endorso_<action/object>', using snake_case and a uniform prefix. The names clearly hint at the tool's function without ambiguity.
4 tools is slightly below average but appropriate for a focused affiliate marketing server. It covers the essential workflows (search, monetize, cart, balance) without being overly sparse.
The tool set covers core affiliate actions: product search, link monetization, cart generation, and balance retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for commission analytics or profile management, but agents can work around these.
