get_coverageCheck which competitive signals RivalSweeper has for an eCommerce domain, with per-signal freshness. Free and non-billable - call this before any billable tool so you never pay for a domain we do not cover.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | eCommerce domain, e.g. gymshark.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is free and non-billable, which is critical behavioral info. It mentions per-signal freshness, hinting at output structure. While not exhaustive (e.g., no auth details), it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and hints at output (freshness). However, it lacks detail on the output format or what 'coverage' concretely means, which could be improved.
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 100% with a single 'domain' parameter described as 'eCommerce domain, e.g. gymshark.com'. The description adds context about the output (signals and freshness) but does not enhance the parameter definition itself. 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks competitive signal coverage for an eCommerce domain with per-signal freshness, specifying the verb ('Check') and resource ('coverage'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on coverage checking, which is a unique prerequisite action.
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?
Explicitly advises calling this tool before any billable tool to avoid paying for uncovered domains, providing clear when-to-use guidance and a usage pattern that optimizes cost. This helps an agent decide to use it as a preliminary check.
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 aspect of competitive intelligence: coverage, snapshot, price, history, promotions, readiness, and monitoring request. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a 'get_' prefix pattern, but 'request_monitoring' uses 'request_'. This slight inconsistency is justified by the different action type (request vs. retrieve), but still deviates from the predominant convention.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a competitive intelligence server. Each tool serves a distinct need without being overwhelming or too few.
The tools cover the main competitive signals: snapshot, price, history, promotions, readiness, and domain monitoring. Minor gaps like listing all monitored domains are absent, but the core workflows are complete.