get_zobship_creditsThe fulfillment-credit wallet balance (free + paid, in minor units — convert to ₹), paid-credit expiry, and the available recharge tiers. Separate from the AI wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: balances are in minor units requiring conversion to ₹, includes free and paid components, exposes expiry and recharge tiers, and is separate from AI wallet. No contradictions with annotations; it complements them well.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only essential details: what is returned, unit conversion, and separation from AI wallet. No redundancy or fluff; every phrase serves a purpose.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the key return elements (balance, expiry, recharge tiers), unit conversion guidance, and the distinguishing context from the AI wallet. The output schema likely contains detailed fields, so the description need not enumerate them.
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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific info (none needed), but it explains the output semantics which indirectly clarifies the absence of parameters. The input schema is empty, and the description provides meaning about what the tool returns.
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 retrieves the fulfillment-credit wallet balance, including free and paid credits, expiry, and recharge tiers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the AI wallet, helping the agent identify the correct resource. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is specific.
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 provides clear context that this is for fulfillment credits and notes separation from the AI wallet, which guides the agent away from alternative tools like get_ai_wallet. However, it does not explicitly name or list alternative tools or exclude other financial tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.
Most tools target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.