Compare several indexed tools side by side on trust signals: trust score, security flags, publisher verification, category, and pricing tier. Pass 2-6 slugs. Fit depends on the specific problem - call find_solutions for ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | Tool slugs to compare. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is a side-by-side comparison rather than a ranking tool, which prevents a likely misuse. It does not go into side effects or auth, but the verb 'compare' and the query-like scope make those less critical here.
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 dense, purposeful sentences. The first defines the tool's core behavior and comparison dimensions; the second covers constraints and routing. No filler or redundant 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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input limits, comparison attributes, and the ranking alternative. The one notable gap is the absence of guidance about get_trust_report, leaving part of the sibling context unresolved.
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 schema covers slugs 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating the min/max constraint ('Pass 2-6 slugs'). It does not explain where slugs come from or how invalid/missing slugs behave, so it stays at the 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?
The description states a specific action ('Compare several indexed tools side by side') on a specific resource and enumerates the exact trust signals compared. It also differentiates itself from find_solutions by noting that ranking is handled there, so an agent can tell the tools apart.
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 explicitly tells the agent to pass 2-6 slugs and directs ranking use cases to find_solutions. However, it does not say when get_trust_report would be the better sibling to use, so the alternative routing is slightly incomplete.
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 has a distinct purpose: find_solutions handles natural-language discovery, compare_tools performs side-by-side comparisons, and get_trust_report provides deep single-tool security analysis. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: compare_tools, find_solutions, get_trust_report. The naming clearly indicates the action and target.
Three tools is on the low end but within the acceptable range and each tool earns its place for the gateway's focused scope. It may feel slightly thin for a broader discovery platform, but it is not excessive or trivial.
The set covers the core workflow: discover solutions, compare options, and retrieve trusted security details. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit catalog-browsing or listing tool, but find_solutions effectively addresses most discovery needs.