Cancel marketplace offers that have been active for more than N days with no completions. Admin-only action tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_age_days | No | Cancel offers older than this many days (default: 14) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool cancels offers and is admin-only, but it does not mention permanence, side effects, reversal, or any consequences of the action. For a destructive admin operation, this is a significant gap.
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-loaded with the action, and every word contributes. It efficiently conveys the action, criteria, and access level without any 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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does and the filtering logic, and the schema covers the parameter. However, it does not indicate what the tool returns or any post-condition, which would be helpful but is not critical for this simple action.
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 covers the single parameter (max_age_days) with a description including a default value, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds 'no completions' as an additional selection criterion, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate further on the parameter itself.
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 uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('marketplace offers'), and clearly specifies the criteria ('active for more than N days with no completions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_marketplace_offers and create_personalized_offer by indicating a cleanup action on stale items.
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 clearly states this is an admin-only action tool, which provides context on authorization. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as mint_loyalty_tokens vs earn_points (both mint loyalty tokens with fee bundles), create_loyalty_program vs register_loyalty_program (deploy vs register existing token), and activate_loyalty_program vs update_program_status (both manage program status). Some pairs like check_voucher_status and list_gift_certificates also overlap on voucher/certificate tracking. However, descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity for careful agents.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_reward, list_loyalty_programs). Subtle deviations include earn_points vs mint_loyalty_tokens (different verbs for similar mint operations) and use_voucher vs redeem_reward (different verb styles for redemption). Overall, the naming is predictable and understandable.
With 39 tools, this server is bloated for a loyalty platform. The addition of Bazaar discovery/payment tools and report management expands the scope, but many tools overlap or cover minor variations (e.g., two workflow planners: generate_program_defaults and get_program_workflow_status). A leaner set of 20-25 tools would be more appropriate.
The tool surface covers the full loyalty program lifecycle: creation, activation, registration, token minting/transfer, rewards, gift certificates, vouchers, offers, customer export, analytics, and reports. Notable gaps include no CRUD for personalized offers (only create), no edit capability for rewards (only status changes), and no direct function to list all vouchers by merchant (only status check by code). These are minor workarounds.