Score the fraud/return risk of an Algerian COD order from its signals (phone, history, etc.) — Mystoq FakeShield logic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hour | No | Hour the order was placed, 0-23. | |
| name | No | Customer full name. | |
| phone | No | Customer phone (Algerian mobile). | |
| wilaya | No | Destination wilaya. | |
| address | No | Delivery address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds context about the specific logic (Mystoq FakeShield) and geographic scope (Algerian COD). No contradictions.
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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with key information. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is efficient.
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?
While the tool's inputs are well-covered, the lack of output schema and description of the score's format or range leaves a gap. Usage guidance is also missing, making it moderately complete for a safe, read-only 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?
All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'signals (phone, history, etc.)' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action 'Score' and the resource 'fraud/return risk of an Algerian COD order', with specific signals mentioned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cod_profit' by focusing on risk scoring.
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 implies usage for fraud/return risk assessment but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'cod_profit' or when not to use it.
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 specific function with clear boundaries. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_product, delete_product), but some are noun_noun (cod_profit, order_risk) and 'publish' is a bare verb, causing minor inconsistency.
12 tools cover product management, store creation, search, and analytics without being overwhelming. The count feels right for the domain.
Missing essential operations like listing products, reading product details, updating stores, or managing orders. Gaps hinder core workflows.
