compare_productsCompare the current pricing plans of 2 to 5 SaaS products side by side. Call this when the user is choosing between named products and wants their prices in one view. Takes product slugs (find them with search_products).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | 2-5 product slugs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds useful context: compares 2-5 products, requires slugs, and references upstream tool for finding slugs. It does not cover potential return format or pagination, but for a read-only comparison tool this is sufficient.
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 focused sentences front-load the core purpose and usage, then add context on prerequisites. Every sentence is essential, no filler.
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 simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, clear annotations, and focused task, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it does, when to use it, and how to find inputs. No gaps remain.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description explains what slugs are (product slugs) and hints they come from search_products, which adds some value beyond the schema's '2-5 product slugs' label. However, it doesn't elaborate on slug format or behavior with invalid slugs.
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 verb 'Compare' and resource 'pricing plans' are specific, and the description clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_products by mentioning 'product slugs' and directing the agent to find them with search_products.
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?
Explicitly states when to call: 'when the user is choosing between named products'. Provides direct alternative: 'find them with search_products', making usage guidance very clear.
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 clear, distinct purpose: searching, fetching details, comparing, history, recent changes, alerts, stack, and list. No two tools appear to overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_products, create_price_alert, get_price_history, get_product, get_stack, list_alerts, search_products), but recent_price_changes breaks the pattern as an adjective_noun. Minor inconsistency but still predictable.
8 tools is well-scoped for a price tracking service, covering search, detailed lookups, comparisons, history, alerts, and user-specific views without unnecessary bloat.
Core workflows are covered: search, view details, compare, get history, set alerts, and view tracked stack. Missing update/delete alert operations and a way to manage tracked products directly, but these are minor gaps agents can work around.