Run the free eight-check agent-readiness scan against a live storefront and return the verdicts. Read-only, at most three pages, 15-second budget, robots.txt honoured. Limited to 5 scans per hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Storefront domain or https URL, e.g. shop.example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the scan is read-only, bounded to three pages, limited to 15 seconds, honors robots.txt, and is rate-limited to five scans per hour.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the constraints are compactly listed, making the definition easy to scan and understand.
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 one-parameter, read-only scan tool, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does, what it returns, its operational limits, and its rate cap. The low complexity means no further behavioral detail is necessary.
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 schema already covers the single parameter at 100% with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: run an eight-check agent-readiness scan against a live storefront and return verdicts. This clearly separates it from checkout, offer, and catalog sibling tools.
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 gives strong contextual constraints (live storefront, read-only, three pages, 15-second budget, five scans per hour) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.
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.
Checkout, scan, and report tools are clearly distinct, but catalog access is split across list_offers, search_catalog, lookup_catalog, and get_offer. search_catalog with no query effectively duplicates list_offers, and lookup_catalog overlaps search_catalog for ID-based resolution.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as create_checkout_session, list_offers, scan_store, and report_problem. The verb style is uniform and clearly maps to each action.
Seven tools is within a reasonable scope for this server, but four of them are overlapping offer/catalog retrieval variants. The count is slightly padded because list_offers, search_catalog, lookup_catalog, and get_offer could likely be consolidated.
The core commerce flow is covered: discover offers, retrieve details, create a checkout session, scan a store, and report problems. Minor gaps exist around order/licence status checks and scan history, but these are external or non-essential for the stated purpose.