list_offersIBO's production packages: stable ids, prices, 50% deposits, deliverables, review rounds, and the scope/refund policy. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| offers | No | ||
| studio | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| policies | No | ||
| how_to_order | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and closed world. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating what the packages contain (stable ids, prices, 50% deposits, deliverables, review rounds, scope/refund policy), and implies id stability. No contradiction.
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 very concise sentences. The first lists key content, the second gives usage direction. No wasted words.
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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to expect and when to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on what is returned.
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 lists IBO production packages with specific details (prices, deposits, deliverables). The verb 'list' is implied by 'Call this first' and the title, and it is distinct from sibling tools like create_checkout or get_order.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to 'Call this first,' establishing this as the entry point before other actions. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'first' instruction gives clear sequential context.
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 action: listing offers, creating checkout, verifying payment, uploading files, submitting briefs, handling custom inquiries, and checking statuses. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_checkout, get_order, list_offers) using snake_case and descriptive verbs like create, get, list, submit.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing production packages, checkouts, uploads, briefs, and custom inquiries. Neither too sparse nor too heavy.
Covers the main workflows (offer selection, payment, asset upload, brief submission, and custom inquiry lifecycle). Minor gaps like order cancellation or brief update tools, but sufficient for core operations.