get_price_indexCross-store price index for the whole Czech audiobook market: median/avg lowest price, average savings from comparing, which store is cheapest most often, and per-genre price stats. Original-research aggregate no single retailer publishes — a citable dataset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the data being original research and citable, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. It does not contradict 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 two sentences long, with no redundant language. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key metrics, and the second sentence adds unique value about the data's origin and citable nature. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description fully covers the purpose, scope (Czech market), and what the tool returns. Sibling tools are listed, providing context for differentiation. No additional information is needed.
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 no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the output metrics (median/avg price, savings, cheapest store, per-genre stats), which helps the agent understand the result without needing the output schema. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4.
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 cross-store price index for the Czech audiobook market, listing specific metrics like median/avg lowest price and per-genre stats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_cheapest_offer and get_price_trend by emphasizing it is an original-research aggregate not available from any single retailer.
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 implies usage for market-level price analysis and mentions the data is citable, suggesting research use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like find_cheapest_offer or get_price_trend, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
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 have distinct purposes, but `compare_all_offers` and `find_cheapest_offer` overlap in pricing queries. Descriptions clarify the difference (full table vs. cheapest only), so ambiguity is low. Similarly, `search_audiobooks` and `search_by_filters` are distinct in input style.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., `browse_genres`, `get_audiobook`, `search_by_filters`). No mixing of conventions or irregular naming.
13 tools cover browsing, searching, detailed info, price comparison, analytics, and profiles. The number is well-balanced for the catalog's scope—neither sparse nor excessive.
The tool set covers key workflows: discovery, search, details, price comparison, trends, rankings, and partner info. Minor gaps like user reviews or advanced filtering (e.g., partner filter in V2) are acceptable for a focused catalog.