Compare two to four distinct published racket slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slugs / items / patternAdded value: +"^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$"Input schema / properties / slugs / maxItemsAdded value: +4Input schema / properties / slugs / minItemsAdded value: +2Input schema / properties / slugs / uniqueItemsAdded value: +trueOutput schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Output schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Output schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / typeAdded value: +"number"Output schema / $defs / AffiliateOffer / properties / retailer / enumPrevious value: -[
- "Amazon",
- "Padel Market",
- "PadelDogs",
- "Tennis Point",
- "Racketshop.com"
-]New value: +[
+ "Amazon",
+ "Padel Market",
+ "PadelDogs",
+ "Tennis Point",
+ "Racketshop.com",
+ "SPORTLET"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the useful constraint that only 'published' slugs are valid, but it doesn't describe the comparison behavior or return structure. Since an output schema exists, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The core action and constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential operational details. It states the operation, input range, distinctness requirement, and publication filter. It does not discuss error behavior, but that is not critical given the simple contract and existing structured metadata.
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 help explain the 'slugs' parameter. It clarifies that slugs must correspond to published rackets and be distinct, though uniqueness and item count are already encoded in the schema. It does not explain what a slug is or how to obtain valid values, leaving some ambiguity.
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 ('Compare') with a clear resource ('rackets') and precise input constraints ('two to four distinct published racket slugs'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_racket, which fetches a single racket, and search_rackets, which searches across rackets.
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 implies the tool is for side-by-side comparison of multiple rackets, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent can infer the use case, but there is no direct guidance about sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.