Fliprofit reseller fee calculator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned values (fee breakdown, payout, profit, margin, ROI, official fee source, calculator link) in the absence of an output schema, and by asserting parity with the official Fliprofit calculators.

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 core purpose before the platform list and return values. The parenthetical platform run is long but informative rather than redundant; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names every returned field, and the input schema fully documents all eight parameters including the complex nested options object. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer compare_platforms.

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%, including a detailed enumeration of the nested platform-specific options object, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('fees, payout and profit for one sale on one platform') and enumerates all twelve supported platforms, so the scope is unmistakable. The output fields listed (fee breakdown, payout, profit, margin, ROI) further pin down what the tool produces.

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 'one sale on one platform' phrasing implies usage, and 'Same numbers as the Fliprofit calculators' establishes authority, but there is no explicit routing guidance. The sibling compare_platforms is the obvious alternative for multi-platform scenarios and is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when to switch.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the fixed set of 12 US platforms, the fact that default platform options are used (a real limitation), and the returned fields plus calculator links.

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?

A single dense sentence with the ranking scope up front and the return contents trailing. Every clause carries information (platform count, default options, returned metrics, links) and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing what comes back (fees, payout, profit, margin per platform, calculator and compare links). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully described input schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents price, taxRate, itemCost, shipCost, otherCost and shipCharged. The description adds nothing about these inputs beyond 'for the same sale', so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Ranks all 12 supported US resale platforms by profit for the same sale.' This clearly contrasts with a single-platform calculator, but it never names calculate_fees, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'each platform's default options' hints that per-platform option tuning isn't possible here and belongs elsewhere, but the description never states when to use compare_platforms versus calculate_fees or get_fee_changes. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that entries are real, dated, include the platform's source URL, and carry a last-verified date.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads what the log contains and then summarizes the filtering options.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three optional filters, rich annotations, and a fully described schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the data's provenance and verification, though it does not discuss output shape or ordering, which is acceptable given there is no output schema.

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%, so the three filters are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of filtering by platform, effective date, or upcoming changes only repeats the schema rather than adding format or semantic detail beyond it.

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 identifies the resource as a machine-readable log of dated US marketplace fee changes, including the specific change types covered. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools calculate_fees and compare_platforms, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 lists available filter dimensions but does not say when to use this tool instead of calculate_fees or compare_platforms. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.