Get value.us's proprietary VUS score (0-5) for a retailer and when its data was last verified. The VUS score measures how much current, verified data value.us holds on the store (a data-confidence signal) - it is NOT a verdict on whether the store is trustworthy or safe to buy from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| retailer | Yes | Store name or domain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context by explaining what the VUS score measures (data confidence) and explicitly warns it is NOT a verdict on store trustworthiness. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, read-only guarantees, or rate limits, which would be additional useful 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 two sentences, front-loading the core function and adding a crucial caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return values (score and last verified time) and the essential interpretation caveat. It lacks usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but these are partially covered by other dimensions, so the completeness is solid for the tool's complexity.
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 only parameter 'retailer' already has a clear schema description ('Store name or domain.'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 tool retrieves value.us's VUS score (0-5) and last verified time for a retailer, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It also clarifies that the VUS score is not a trust verdict, which distinguishes its purpose from what the name implies, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to fully differentiate them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_deals or lookup_retailer. The description implies it is for data-confidence checks but does not state conditions, exclusions, or recommend sibling tools for trust-related questions.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: one for trust scores, one for searching deals across retailers, one for detailed retailer policies. Minor overlap between find_deals and lookup_retailer on deals, but the scoping is clear.
All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower snake_case: check_retailer_trust, find_deals, lookup_retailer. No mixing of styles.
3 tools is a small but well-focused set for a retail data service covering trust scores, deal search, and retailer details. Not too few given the narrow domain.
The tool set covers core user needs: trust assessment, deal discovery, and retailer policy lookup. Missing features like retailer comparison or list are non-critical, so it's reasonably complete.
