Ask Bo, Obato's AI boat expert, any question about boats, watersports or the European boat market. Returns a cited answer grounded in Obato's live market data. Rate-limited (5 req/min/IP).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | The question for Bo (max ~500 chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by stating that answers are 'cited' and 'grounded in Obato's live market data', and mentions the rate limit of 5 req/min/IP. This adds valuable operational context. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them, so there's no contradiction.
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: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second adds key behavioral details (cited, grounded, rate-limited). It's front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place without verbosity.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, high schema coverage) and the available annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, key constraints (rate limit), and output nature (cited). It doesn't explain the return format in detail, but that would be redundant without an output schema, and the description covers what's 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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'question' (with a max length of 500 chars). The description does not add further parameter semantics but also doesn't need to; the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Ask Bo, Obato's AI boat expert, any question about boats, watersports or the European boat market.' It specifies the resource (Bo), the action (ask a question), and the domain, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that are more specific (e.g., get_boat_details, market_snapshot).
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 clearly defines when to use the tool: for any general question about boats, watersports, or the European boat market. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list implies that for specific data (like pricing or brand info), other tools might be more appropriate; however, the description doesn't state exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
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 resources, but get_boat_pricing_stats and get_market_stats overlap heavily: both return count, average, median, min/max price scoped by category and region. ask_bo and get_facts also both return cited factual content, leaving some ambiguity even if the descriptions help.
The set predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern: search_boats, search_rentals, get_brand_info, compare_brands, and get_boat_details all fit cleanly. market_snapshot breaks the pattern as a bare noun phrase, and ask_bo uses a proper noun, but these are minor deviations within an otherwise predictable convention.
11 tools is well-scoped for a multifaceted read-only marketplace domain covering listings, rentals, brands, marinas, knowledge-graph facts, and market statistics. Each tool earns its place, even though a couple of them partially overlap.
Core workflows are covered: boat search and details, rental search, brand lookup and comparison, marina discovery, knowledge-graph facts, and multiple market statistics views. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated marina detail endpoint and rental details only appearing via search results, but agents can work around these.
