deals_hot
Biggest absolute price drops among in-date SADC products (paid, $0.001/req or pass).
Returns products where the retailer listed an old price, sorted by savings.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
terminal
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'paid, $0.001/req or pass' (cost hint) and that it returns products sorted by savings, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination, error handling, or the meaning of 'pass'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation context.
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 concise, comprising two sentences that convey the core purpose and output. The phrase 'paid, $0.001/req or pass' is cryptic but does not add excessive length. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the key behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify return fields, the meaning of 'savings', and terms like 'in-date' and 'SADC'. It does not, leaving gaps about the response structure and criteria. The cost note is ambiguous, and the tool's behavior is only partially explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While the schema shows an integer with default 10, the description provides no additional meaning about what limit controls (e.g., number of results), leaving the agent to infer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns products with the biggest absolute price drops among in-date SADC products, sorted by savings. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like deals and deals_search, which likely cover general deals or search functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when looking for hot deals (biggest absolute price drops) among in-date SADC products. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'biggest absolute price drops' and 'in-date SADC' strongly implies its use case.
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.