catalogues
In-date retailer catalogues from the PriceMate corpus (paid, $0.002/req or pass).
Args:
limit: max catalogues to return (1-50).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
terminal
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002/req) and a limit range, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return structure looks like, how 'in-date' is determined, or what happens when the limit is exceeded. The phrase 'or pass' is ambiguous and adds no clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' section is efficiently formatted. However, the phrase 'or pass' is unexplained and slightly confusing, and the cost note feels placementally odd, adding minor noise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter list tool, the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks any mention of what the returned catalogue objects contain, whether there is pagination, or any authentication requirements. The paid pricing note is useful but the overall context feels incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the 'limit' parameter with a range (1-50) and meaning ('max catalogues to return'), which goes beyond the schema's bare type/default. This is significant value-add since schema description coverage is effectively low, and it compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it returns 'in-date retailer catalogues from the PriceMate corpus', which is a clear resource with a specific scope. The verb is implicit but the plural 'catalogues' indicates a list/retrieval operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deals' or 'deals_hot', but the corpus and 'in-date' qualifier provide some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'paid', which may imply cost considerations but does not help with selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped by domain (funding, deals, transcripts, etc.) and each has a specific focus: basic list, latest, search, or summary. While some pairs like deals/deals_search and funding/funding_latest could be confused, the descriptions clearly differentiate them. The boundaries are mostly clear, but the sheer number of tools requires careful reading.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent across the set. Some tools use bare nouns (funding, deals, catalogues), some use verb prefixes (get_article, list_threads, search_wire), and many use suffixes (_latest, _search, _summary). The position and style of modifiers vary between domains, making it difficult to predict tool names.
Tool Count3/5
With 27 tools, the server is on the heavy end, which aligns with its terminal-style scope covering many distinct data domains (news, transcripts, funding, retail, model watch). The count is justified by the breadth, but it feels dense and could be split into smaller, more focused servers.
Completeness4/5
The server provides comprehensive coverage for most domains: listing, retrieving details, searching, and domain-specific variants (latest, hot, sentiment). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific funding event by ID or a latest deals tool, but these are easy workarounds.