Send flowers in Israel: browse bouquets, check delivery days, get a quote and place an order in USD.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct step or resource: browsing (search_bouquets/get_bouquet), logistics (delivery_options), pre-order pricing (quote), order placement (create_order), and post-order tracking (order_status). The only near-overlap is pricing context between quote and delivery_options, but quote is bouquet-specific and delivery_options is a general coverage/schedule lookup, so they remain clearly separable. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The set mixes verb_noun (create_order, get_bouquet, search_bouquets), noun phrases (delivery_options, order_status), and a bare verb (quote). It is readable and uses snake_case throughout, but the underlying pattern is inconsistent. A stricter verb_noun convention (e.g. get_delivery_options, get_order_status) would have made selection more predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a niche flower-ordering service, covering the full customer journey without padding. Each tool earns its place: discovery, detail, logistics, pricing, ordering, and status. There is no sense of redundancy or thinness.
The surface covers browse → details → delivery info → quote → order → status, which is the core lifecycle for this domain. Minor gaps exist around post-order changes, such as cancelling or modifying an order, and there is no tool to validate a coupon independently of quote. These are workaroundable or arguably out of scope, so the set is largely complete.
Place an order and get its payment link. The order is held but not taken until the person pays at that link (card, in US dollars, on AllPay's secure page); give them the link and the total. Never pay on their behalf unless they asked you to and gave you the means. Confirm the recipient, address, phone, date and card message with the person first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| coupon | No | ||
| address | Yes | Street, number, apartment, floor, entrance code. | |
| surprise | No | True: do not contact the recipient before delivery. | |
| buyer_name | Yes | The person paying. | |
| buyer_email | Yes | Where the receipt and any questions go. | |
| buyer_phone | No | ||
| card_message | No | Printed on the card with the flowers. | |
| delivery_date | Yes | ||
| delivery_notes | No | For the courier. | |
| recipient_name | Yes | ||
| recipient_phone | Yes | Israeli or international number, digits only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare write, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds materially more: the order is held but not taken until the buyer pays, payment is by card in US dollars on AllPay's secure page, and the agent must obtain consent plus means before paying on someone's behalf. That is exactly the non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs before firing a write call.
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 action and its output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences cover the payment-link handoff and consent constraint without filler. Four dense sentences for a 13-parameter financial write is proportionate, though the parenthetical about card/USD/secure page slightly interrupts the flow.
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 correctly covers the return (a payment link plus total to relay to the buyer), which is the key piece an agent would otherwise lack. The remaining gap is the unexplained slug identifier for the chosen bouquet and how it relates to get_bouquet/search_bouquets, which the description never connects.
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 coverage is 54%, and the description only reinforces a handful of fields (recipient, address, phone, date, card message) that the schema already annotates. It adds no meaning for slug, coupon, city enumeration, buyer_phone, or surprise, so with roughly half the parameters undocumented it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus a key output: 'Place an order and get its payment link.' That distinguishes it from read-only siblings like search_bouquets, get_bouquet, and order_status. It never names the closest sibling, quote, which plausibly returns pricing without committing an order, so sibling separation is left partly to inference.
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?
It supplies real usage context: give the person the link and the total, confirm recipient/address/phone/date/card message first, and never pay on their behalf unless explicitly asked and funded. These are prerequisites and boundaries for invoking the tool. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternatives (e.g. when to call quote instead), so it's clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Where and when we deliver: the cities, the delivery price, the next delivery dates with any day surcharge, and the rules (no Shabbat or Jewish festival days, 11:00-19:00 Israel time). Pass a date to check that day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| date | No | A date to check, in Israel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: business rules (no Shabbat or Jewish festival days), operating hours (11:00-19:00 Israel time), and surcharge behavior on certain days. What the returned price/dates represent is disclosed.
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?
One dense but well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the resource ('Where and when we deliver') followed by the returned fields and rules. No filler or redundancy, though the run-on structure could be slightly cleaner.
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 lookup with no output schema and only two optional params, the description adequately enumerates the returned content and the governing rules. The only minor gap is whether omitting date returns the full schedule, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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?
The city enum is self-documenting with 16 values, and the date param has a schema description plus a format pattern. The description adds invocation semantics for date ('check that day'), clarifying its purpose beyond the bare schema note. Limited remaining gap makes this better than baseline.
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 resource and enumerates what it returns (cities, price, next delivery dates with surcharge, delivery rules). An agent clearly understands this is a delivery-availability lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like quote or create_order, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
'Pass a date to check that day' gives concrete invocation guidance for the optional date parameter, and the overall context implies pre-order use. However, it never states when to prefer this over quote or create_order, nor what happens when no date is passed (all dates returned?). Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Everything about one bouquet: description, flowers, colours, occasions, price, all photos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | From search_bouquets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (it returns all photos, price and attributes), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown slug, error handling, or result size, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('one bouquet') followed by the payload list. Every word contributes and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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, enumerating the returned facets is exactly the right compensating move, and the input wiring is supplied by the schema. Only the probe-it-first dependency on search_bouquets and invalid-slug behavior are left implicit.
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% and the single required param carries its own 'From search_bouquets' note, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a single-bouquet lookup, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 resource (one bouquet) and enumerates the returned facets (description, flowers, colours, occasions, price, photos), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. 'One bouquet' implicitly separates it from search_bouquets, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. Usage is only implied, and the routing hint lives in the schema (slug 'From search_bouquets') rather than the description, so the agent must infer that search_bouquets must be called first to obtain the slug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The status of an order (awaiting payment, paid, delivered, cancelled), by order number and the buyer's email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer_email | Yes | The email the order was placed with. | |
| order_number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the possible status values returned, which matters because there is no output schema, and by implying that both parameters together identify the order. It does not mention auth requirements or not-found behavior.
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 sentence with no filler, and the most important information (what is returned) is front-loaded. The parenthetical status list earns its place given the absent output schema, though the sentence reads as a caption fragment rather than an instruction.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, listing the possible statuses covers the main return-value gap. However, it omits what happens when the order number and email do not match, and gives no hint about privacy or verification implications of looking up an order by a third party's email.
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 coverage is 50%: buyer_email is documented in the schema, order_number is not. The description names both parameters and conveys that they are used jointly as an identity pair, which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema, but it adds no format, range, or validation detail for order_number.
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 names the resource (an order) and precisely what is returned (its status), even enumerating the possible states: awaiting payment, paid, delivered, cancelled. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like delivery_options or create_order, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are named. The use case is only implied by the description of the return value; the agent must infer that this is the tracking/lookup tool rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The exact total for a bouquet delivered to a city on a date, with any coupon, before placing the order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| coupon | No | ||
| delivery_date | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a non-committal pricing step ('before placing the order'), but says nothing about whether the quote is guaranteed, how coupon validity is handled, or what happens if the city/date is unserviceable.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause maps to a real dimension of the tool's behavior.
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 and no annotation gaps, the description should explain the shape of the result (currency, breakdown, whether the coupon discount is shown) and error conditions. It gestures at the return value ('exact total') but leaves it thin for a 4-parameter quoting tool.
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 the description must carry the load — and it does name all four concepts (bouquet, city, date, coupon) in prose. It adds no format, constraint, or enum detail, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented schema.
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 outcome — the exact total for a bouquet delivered to a city on a date, optionally with a coupon — which is a concrete computational purpose. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_order via 'before placing the order', though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
'before placing the order' implies the tool is a pre-check step, which is useful contextual guidance. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when/when-not framing against siblings like create_order or delivery_options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the bouquets for sale, with price in US dollars, photo and page link. Filter by occasion, colour, budget or words. Every bouquet is made by hand by a florist in Tel Aviv.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Words to look for in the name, description or flowers. | |
| color | No | ||
| occasion | No | For example birthday, shabbat, anniversary. | |
| max_price_usd | No | Bouquet price, before delivery. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned (price, photo, link), but says nothing about result counts, pagination, or ordering, so it adds only modest context beyond structured fields.
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 functional content is front-loaded into two tight sentences, which is good. But the closing sentence about bouquets being handmade in Tel Aviv is promotional filler that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every sentence earns its place.
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 takes on the burden of describing results and does so adequately (price in USD, photo, link). It is only incomplete in not covering pagination or result limits for what is presumably a large catalog listing.
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 coverage is 75% and the enums for color/occasion are fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'filter by occasion, colour, budget or words' merely mirrors the parameter list and adds no format or syntax detail; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the bouquets for sale') and goes further by naming the return payload (price in USD, photo, page link). An agent can distinguish this browse/search tool from get_bouquet and the order-flow siblings without opening a schema.
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 filter dimensions ('occasion, colour, budget or words') imply when the tool is useful, so usage is inferable. However, it never contrasts with get_bouquet (single-bouquet lookup) or states what happens with no filters, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_orderdelivery_optionsget_bouquetorder_statusquotesearch_bouquetsFind flower arrangements, check US florist delivery by ZIP and date, get a purchase link + pricing
Send real gifts to 190+ countries: search, check delivery, get a secure checkout link.
Order bouquets from independent Prague florists: live prices, delivery times, pay on pinflower.cz.
Compare flower delivery in Germany: find bouquets by text or photo, order at partner florists.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.