lookup_catalogLook up one or more verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products or variants by UCP identifier. Read-only; cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method,' reinforcing read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, error conditions, or return format.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and method, second clarifies read-only constraint. No fluff or redundant information.
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 read-only lookup with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and safety. However, it omits parameter structure details (e.g., meaning of meta vs catalog) and return value expectations, which would aid agent understanding.
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 0%, so parameters have no inline descriptions. The description mentions 'by UCP identifier,' but does not map this to the meta or catalog parameters. The nested structures (meta with profile URI, catalog with ids array) are left unexplained, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
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 action ('look up'), the resource ('verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products or variants'), and the method ('by UCP identifier'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_catalog (searching) or get_hfa_article (articles).
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 includes 'Read-only; cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method,' which clarifies when to use (safe queries) and when not to (for creating charges). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_catalog for non-UCP lookups.
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 targets a distinct operation: getting a single article, listing recent content, searching articles, and four product/catalog lookups with different scopes. They are well-separated with no overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., get_hfa_article, search_hfa_content. However, there is minor inconsistency: get_hfa_offerings vs get_product, and lookup_catalog vs search_catalog could be more uniform.
7 tools cover the primary use cases for a Hedge Fund Alpha research server: retrieving articles, searching content, and exploring membership products. The count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool set provides full read-only coverage for the stated purpose: article retrieval (single, list, search) and product catalog exploration (offerings, product detail, lookup, search). No significant gaps for a research-oriented server.