quote_shippingQuotes shipment rates from every active courier configured for the authenticated business and returns options sorted by price ascending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weightGrams | Yes | Total shipment weight in grams. | |
| declaredValue | No | Declared value in ARS for insurance. | |
| originPostalCode | Yes | Origin postal code (4 digits). | |
| destinationPostalCode | Yes | Destination postal code (4 digits). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: it quotes from 'every active courier' and returns options 'sorted by price ascending', which are not conveyed by annotations. This exceeds the baseline given annotation coverage.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and includes all key information: scope, authentication context, and output sorting. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given the tool has good annotations and a moderate parameter set, the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the scope (all couriers) and result ordering. Without an output schema, it would be ideal to mention the shape of returned options, but the description still gives a complete enough picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (origin/destination postal codes, weightGrams, declaredValue), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to given the high schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('Quotes') and resource ('shipment rates'), and further specifies scope ('every active courier configured for the authenticated business') and output behavior ('sorted by price ascending'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_shipment or open_shipment_prep, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage context (quote shipping when comparing courier rates) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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 duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.