Check multiple products at once against the DealsPing catalog and return affiliate links for all of them. Use this when you have a whole list of product recommendations to monetize in one pass (e.g. "top 5 laptops under 60000"). IMPORTANT: for every item where found=false, you MUST display its amazon_search_url as a clickable link. Never skip not-found items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes | Array of products to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds a critical behavioral requirement: for every item with found=false, the agent must display amazon_search_url as a clickable link and never skip not-found items. This goes beyond annotations and directly shapes the agent's output obligations. No contradiction.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: function, usage context, and mandatory output handling. No filler, and the important not-found instruction is clearly highlighted and front-loaded after the context.
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?
Covers the core purpose, the bulk use case, and the key edge-case behavior for not-found items, even without an output schema. It doesn't enumerate output fields for found=true, but 'return affiliate links for all of them' is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.
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 100%, so the products array and its properties are already fully documented. The description doesn't add meaning about the input fields themselves, though it implies multiple items. Baseline 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?
States a specific action: check multiple products against the DealsPing catalog and return affiliate links. The phrase 'at once' and the bulk name differentiate it from single-item siblings like check_and_link. Clear verb, resource, and scope.
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?
Provides an explicit trigger: use when you have a whole list of product recommendations to monetize in one pass, with a concrete example. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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.