find_toolsFind live FastDrop products by capability. Searches the actual tool lists FastDrop read from each endpoint via tools/list - not maker-supplied tags or descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50, default 20 | |
| query | Yes | Capability, tool name, or description to match |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as readOnly and idempotent. Description adds that it searches actual tool lists from endpoints, not maker-supplied tags, which clarifies behavior and data source beyond 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?
Two concise sentences with purpose front-loaded. No filler words, but could clarify product/tool ambiguity. Efficient for a simple tool.
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 output schema exists and annotations provide safety hints, description adequately explains purpose and data source. Does not need to describe return values. Slight gap in clarifying scope of search.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description need not add detail. It mentions 'by capability' but does not describe the parameters beyond what schema provides. Baseline score applies.
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?
States finding live FastDrop products by capability, and clarifies it searches actual tool lists, not tags. The verb 'find' and resource 'products' are clear, but the tool name is 'find_tools' which creates minor confusion. Still differentiates from siblings by specifying data source.
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?
Indirectly suggests use when you need real tool capabilities from endpoints, not tags. Does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternative tool names, but context from sibling tools and description helps. Lacks clear 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching by capability, getting product details, listing comments, launches, reviews, and searching by text/tags. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (find_tools, get_product, list_comments, list_launches, list_reviews, search_products), with clear and predictable verbs.
Six tools is appropriate for a product discovery server, covering search, detail retrieval, and listing of associated data without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core operations for the domain: searching, viewing individual products, and browsing launches, comments, and reviews. No obvious gaps for a read-only discovery service.