get_historyMonthly time-series of price changes (drops/rises/avg delta) or stock-status flips for a brand. Depth-tiered: up to 3 months = 5 credits, 4-12 months = 8, 13-24 months = 13. No data = no charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | eCommerce domain | |
| months | No | Window in months, default 3 | |
| signal | No | Which signal history, default price |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses credit scaling by depth and the no-charge policy for missing data, which are useful. However, it omits other key behaviors such as idempotency, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (assumed but not stated).
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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids extraneous details. However, the title includes credit cost information that is repeated in the description, which could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 partially compensates by indicating the output shape: monthly time-series of price changes or stock-status flips. It also covers cost implications. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., data points structure), pagination, or limitations like maximum time range beyond 24 months. For a tool with three parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (domain, months, signal). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning the parameters in context (e.g., signal types as 'price' and 'stock_status'). It does not provide examples or clarify default behavior (e.g., default months=3) beyond what the schema states.
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 provides a monthly time-series of price changes (drops, rises, avg delta) or stock-status flips for a brand. It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_brand_snapshot or get_competitor_price, which may also involve time-series data.
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 mentions credit cost tiers for different depth ranges and a 'no data = no charge' policy, providing some guidance on when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools for different needs (e.g., real-time data). The usage context is implied but not exhaustive.
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.