quote_shippingQuotes shipment rates from every active courier configured for the authenticated business and returns options sorted by price ascending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weightGrams | Yes | Total shipment weight in grams. | |
| declaredValue | No | Declared value in ARS for insurance. | |
| originPostalCode | Yes | Origin postal code (4 digits). | |
| destinationPostalCode | Yes | Destination postal code (4 digits). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it queries all active couriers and returns results sorted by price ascending, which helps the agent set expectations. No contradictions with annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Quotes shipment rates') and includes essential scoping and output ordering. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 quoting tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the scope ('every active courier') and output ordering, but lacks explicit detail on the structure of each returned option (e.g., whether it includes courier name, estimated delivery time, or just price). This slight gap prevents a 5.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's definitions, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Quotes') and resource ('shipment rates'), and specifies scope ('from every active courier configured for the authenticated business') and output ordering ('sorted by price ascending'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_shipment, track_shipment, and get_package_profile.
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 makes the use case clear: it returns rates from all configured couriers, implying it's for comparing shipping prices before creating a shipment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools like create_shipment.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.