compare_robotsStellt 2–4 Modelle nebeneinander: Preise, Verfügbarkeit, Technik-Eckdaten und alle RadarScore-Achsen mit Evidenzgraden. / Side-by-side comparison of 2–4 robots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Modell-Schlüssel, z. B. ["unitree-g1", "unitree-r1"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the comparison aspects (prices, availability, tech specs, RadarScore axes) and that evidence levels are provided. However, it does not detail how it handles missing data or the exact output format. No output schema is provided, reducing transparency.
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 concise and to the point$ It provides the tool's purpose and the parameter in a direct manner. The schema is minimal and clear.
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?
The description is self-contained for usage, but lacks explicit output specification or edge-case handling. The sibling tools might provide context, but the tool itself doesn't describe how it interacts with other tools or what the output structure is. So it is somewhat incomplete.
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 parameter 'ids' is described as model keys with an example. The min and max items (2 and 4) are clear. The description is in German but that's acceptable given the bilingual tool description. No enums are provided, but the description gives an example of the key format.
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 purpose: comparing 2-4 robot models side-by-side on prices, availability, tech specs, and RadarScore axes. The bilingual note reinforces the function.
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 explains that 2-4 models are compared)Skip the note? Actually the description says 'Stellt 2–4 Modelle nebeneinander' which is the action. The input schema requires ids with minItems 2 and maxItems 4, which directly supports the usage. No explicit conditional instructions, but it is clear that the user provides model IDs.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: compare, dataset metadata, single record retrieval, import cost calculation, and search. There is no overlap in purpose; even search and compare differ in that search returns compact rows while compare does side-by-side analysis.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_robots, search_robots, get_robot), but two use noun-based names (dataset_info, import_cost). This mixed convention is still readable but not consistently predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a dataset-focused server, covering search, retrieval, comparison, metadata, and a specialized calculation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
For a read-only evidence-based dataset server, the surface is complete: users can search, fetch full records, compare models, access metadata, and estimate import costs. No obvious gaps given the domain purpose.