Aggregate market stats (count, avg/median/min/max price) for a category and optional region. English/German/French category and country names are normalised. When regio is a Dutch province, counts AND prices are computed over that province only (price_scope='province').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regio | No | ||
| type_boot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: English/German/French name normalization and the Dutch-province special case where counts and prices are scoped to the province (price_scope='province'). This helps the agent anticipate input handling and scoping semantics.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and output stats, the second covers normalization, and the third covers the key region edge case. Every sentence contributes distinct, necessary information without redundancy.
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?
For a read-only aggregate tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return metrics, the inputs, language normalization, and an important scoping exception. It does not define the exact category set or all region behaviors, but the essential calling context is present.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps type_boot to 'category' and regio to 'optional region', and explains language normalization and the province-scope effect for regio. However, it doesn't specify exact value formats, allowed category values, or behavior for non-Dutch regions, leaving some semantics to inference.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate market stats (count, avg/median/min/max price) for a category and optional region.' It clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling detail/lookup tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for differentiation.
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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when aggregate counts and price statistics for a category and optional region are needed, and it notes that category/country names are normalized across languages. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools like get_boat_pricing_stats or market_snapshot.
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.
