Retrieve live cart state by cart_id: full item list, calculated totals in ZAR, and any customer details stored so far. Call after update_cart to confirm changes are correct before proceeding to create_checkout. Cart expires after 24 hours of inactivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cart_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the cart is live (current state), includes customer details 'stored so far' (potentially partial), and expires after 24 hours of inactivity. The word 'Retrieve' implies read-only, which is sufficient for a simple getter. It lacks details on error handling or permissions but covers key behavioral traits.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and contents, the second gives workflow guidance, and the third provides the expiry behavior. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no fluff.
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 simple one-param read operation, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and a key behavioral detail (expiry). It does not have an output schema, but the description already lists the return contents. Missing error scenarios are not critical for such a tool, making it fairly complete.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'by cart_id', but this adds little beyond the parameter name itself. No format, source, or example is given. Since there is only one simple parameter, it is adequate but does not go beyond what is already obvious.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'live cart state' by `cart_id`, with a specific list of contents (item list, totals, customer details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_checkout` and `get_order`, which target other resources.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after update_cart to confirm changes are correct before proceeding to create_checkout.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the workflow context is strong and 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but search_products and lookup_catalog overlap significantly in filtering by category and dimensions, which could confuse an agent. The three search/filter tools have subtle differences described, but the overlap lowers the score from perfect.
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb-noun structure (e.g., cancel_cart, get_product, update_checkout). There is no mixing of conventions, and the verbs clearly indicate the action, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
26 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the domain of an e-commerce blinds shop with additional services like AR, swatches, and price matches justifies the count. A couple of legacy tools (create_order, submit_enquiry) add minor bloat.
The core purchase flow (search, configure, cart, checkout, payment, order tracking) is fully covered. Additional services like AR visualization, swatches, price match, and WhatsApp handoff are present. Missing features like order listing or coupon application are minor gaps.