request_partnershipSubmit a partnership proposal (cross-listing, joint bundle, embed, co-marketing). Reviewed in 3 business days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Identifier for the proposing agent or company | |
| proposal | Yes | Free-text partnership proposal — what you'd like to build/co-market | |
| contact_email | Yes | ||
| integration_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses review timeline (3 business days), but no details on outcome, side effects, or required permissions. Since no annotations, description attempts to add behavioral context but is incomplete.
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?
Single sentence front-loads key information; no superfluous text.
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?
Missing details on response format, confirmation, error handling, and prerequisites. For a submission tool, more context is needed given no output schema and sparse annotations.
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 50%; description adds brief examples of partnership types that align with integration_type enum, but does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters like contact_email.
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?
Clear verb 'submit' and resource 'partnership proposal' with examples of partnership types. Distinct from sibling tools like 'register_affiliate' and 'request_product_consultation'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.