Add a Salvage & Surplus product to your cart and receive a cart token. Requires a valid SKU. Returns cart_token needed for checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| quantity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by stating 'Requires a valid SKU' and 'Returns cart_token needed for checkout', but it does not disclose side effects like whether it creates a new cart, modifies an existing cart, or what happens on invalid input.
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 with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides critical prerequisite and output information.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential flow (add product, receive token) and links it to checkout. It could mention error cases or cart state, but overall it is sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the SKU requirement ('valid SKU') which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not mention the quantity parameter or its default behavior, leaving the description incomplete.
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 action ('Add a Salvage & Surplus product to your cart') and the result ('receive a cart token'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like checkout and confirm_payment by focusing on the cart-add step.
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 adding products to cart before checkout, and 'Requires a valid SKU' suggests using get_product/search_products first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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 distinct role: product discovery (search_products, get_product), cart management (add_to_cart), and payment processing (checkout, confirm_payment). The sequential flow is clear and there is no overlap between tools.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (add_to_cart, confirm_payment, get_product, search_products). 'checkout' deviates slightly as a single verb, but it is still clear and follows the same overall style.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a simple purchase workflow. Each tool is necessary for the core flow of searching, viewing, adding to cart, and completing a purchase.
The purchase lifecycle is covered end-to-end: search, retrieve details, add to cart, checkout, and confirm payment. Minor gaps exist such as no update/remove cart functionality, but these do not block the primary workflow.