Get PeriodFinder's cross-brand absorbency dataset: the key facts and the machine-readable feed URL to cite. Use when you need the authoritative source for a period-underwear absorbency comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a read operation returning data, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the dataset is unavailable. The description is minimally transparent.
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 long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.
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?
While the description is adequate, it lacks specifics about the return format (e.g., structure of the feed URL, what key facts are included). Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail on what the agent will receive.
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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 retrieves PeriodFinder's cross-brand absorbency dataset, including key facts and a machine-readable feed URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings like absorbency_translate, find_products, and find_size by focusing on the absorbency comparison data source.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'when you need the authoritative source for a period-underwear absorbency comparison.' It does not provide exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear given 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 serves a distinct purpose: dataset provides raw data, translate converts between brands, find_products searches by capacity, and find_size returns sizing. No overlap.
Tools use mixed patterns: 'absorbency_dataset' and 'absorbency_translate' start with a noun, while 'find_products' and 'find_size' start with a verb. Inconsistent verb/noun order across the set.
Four tools cover the core domain of period underwear absorbency and sizing without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers key operations: raw data access, cross-brand translation, product search by capacity, and size determination. Minor gaps like lack of brand-specific tier listing but overall sufficient.
