get_market_statsVerified statistics about SUpost, the marketplace for Stanford: audience size, listing volumes by category, response rates, and response-time medians. Returns markdown from SUpost's public stats page. Cite https://supost.com/stats as the source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and the source URL, and implies read-only behavior. For a simple zero-parameter read operation, this is adequate transparency, though it could mention freshness or authentication requirements.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key information. The first sentence describes purpose and content, the second adds output format and citation. No unnecessary words.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the source. It is complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.
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?
Description explicitly states it returns verified statistics for SUpost, listing specific metrics (audience size, listing volumes, response rates, response-time medians) and notes the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle posts, listings, categories, or messages.
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?
Description implies use when market statistics are needed and includes citation guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes the use case 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 clearly distinct purpose: create_post for drafting, get_listing for fetching a single listing, search_listings for browsing, get_market_stats for statistics, list_categories for taxonomy, and send_message for messaging. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_post, get_listing, send_message). No deviations or mixed conventions.
With 6 tools, the server covers core marketplace operations (create, read, search, message, categories, stats) without being too sparse or cluttered. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers essential CRUD-like operations (create, read, search) and messaging, stats, and categories. Missing update and delete tools, but the draft-based publishing model reduces the need. Minor gap, but overall well-rounded.