search_catalogSearch verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products and prices using the UCP catalog search capability. 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:true, destructiveHint:false, and idempotentHint:true. The description reinforces these by stating it is read-only and cannot charge, and adds that the search is over 'verified' content. This adds value beyond annotations, though it could include additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, result 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?
The description is exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and safety warnings in the second. No superfluous information is present, and key points are front-loaded.
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 complexity (nested objects, 2 required params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, input format, and output expectations. An agent would need to infer too much to use this tool 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'meta' and 'catalog' parameters, which are complex nested objects. An AI agent would not understand how to structure the input, making this a critical gap. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool searches the HFA membership catalog for products and prices, with a specific domain and constraints. It uses 'search' as a strong verb and distinguishes the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_hfa_content, which could cause ambiguity for an AI agent.
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 mentions the tool is read-only and cannot create checkouts, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_hfa_content, lookup_catalog), and does not mention prerequisites or failure scenarios.
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.