get_affiliate_infoCommission rates (15-30%), tracking, and tier perks. Pass product_slug for that product's specific rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_slug | No | Optional: a specific product to get the affiliate rate for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It transparently states the tool returns commission rates, tracking info, and tier perks. No hidden side effects or destructive behaviors are indicated.
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, no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: commission rates range, tracking, tier perks, and optional parameter usage.
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 info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It does not specify return format but that is acceptable given the context.
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% with a description for product_slug. The tool description adds value by clarifying that passing the slug gets a specific product's rate, implying without it returns general rates.
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 'Commission rates, tracking, and tier perks' and specifies that passing product_slug gives product-specific rate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_affiliate or request_partnership.
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 when to use (get affiliate info) and how to use with optional product_slug, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.
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 targets a distinct aspect of the commerce and affiliate ecosystem: comparison, checkout, affiliate info, cross-sells, free tier, MCP install, pricing, recommendation, trust score, registration, partnership, consultation, search, and vendor verification. No two tools have overlapping purposes; boundaries are clear.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_products, get_affiliate_info, request_partnership). While the verbs vary, the structure is predictable and uniform, with no mixing of conventions.
14 tools is well-scoped for a commerce marketplace server covering product discovery, comparison, pricing, affiliate management, checkout, partnerships, and vendor verification. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from product discovery to checkout, including affiliate management and partnerships. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a dedicated tool for retrieving detailed product information beyond search results, but agents can work around this.