las_offertforfraganStatus och inkomna offerter för en tidigare skapad offertförfrågan (token från skapa_offertforfragan). Varje offert bär företag, verifiering, betyg, summa och pristyp (fastpris = bindande; budget = riktpris som stäms av innan start). Använd valj_offert för att välja vinnare.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Förfrågningstoken (returnerades av skapa_offertforfragan). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains that offers include company, verification, rating, sum, and price type, distinguishing fixed price from budget. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency, so it carries partial burden adequately.
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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding essential details about offer structure and price types. No redundant information.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (status and offers with fields) and references a sibling for next steps. It lacks error conditions or output format details but is sufficient for basic usage.
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 100% of the single parameter 'token', describing its origin from 'skapa_offertforfragan'. The description reiterates this but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the tool reads status and offers for a previously created offer request, using specific verb 'läsa' and resource 'offertförfrågan'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'valj_offert' (select winner) and 'skapa_offertforfragan' (create).
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 specifies the prerequisite: a token from 'skapa_offertforfragan'. It also mentions 'valj_offert' for selecting a winner, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but avropa_tjanst and skapa_offertforfragan overlap in sending requests, with the difference being specific vs. general targeting. lediga_tider is somewhat redundant as it merely explains the paused booking and directs to other tools.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., sok_tjanster, las_foretag, skapa_offertforfragan), but lediga_tider deviates as a noun phrase rather than an action. Swedish naming is consistent in style, though las and tjanst are reused in multiple contexts.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a service mediation platform, covering search, details, requests, and quote management without feeling bloated or sparse.
Core workflows for requesting a specific service or a general quote are covered with create/read/select actions. Minor gaps include no way to track a direct avropa_tjanst request and the paused direct booking creates a dead end, but the tool descriptions guide workarounds.