Auction houses, online auctions and government surplus.
Scored across 11 tools
Each tool maps to a distinct resource (courses, listings, products, categories, places, sources, stats) and the verb distinction between get_*, list_* and search_* is clear. The only mild overlap is list_categories (auction house/platform categories) versus list_product_categories, and get_listing versus search_listings, but the descriptions disambiguate these adequately.
All 11 tools follow a strict verb_noun snake_case pattern using get_, list_ and search_ prefixes, with the noun matching the resource returned. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a distinct resource or operation (three gets, seven lists, one search). Nothing feels padded or redundant for a read-only data directory API.
The surface covers the full read-only lifecycle for its domain: listings with detail and search, categories, places, sources, stats, plus courses and products. Minor gaps exist—no text search or get-by-slug for products/courses beyond listing, and no detail endpoint for categories or places—but agents can work around these via list filters.
Get one published academy course by its slug, with its objectives, lessons and FAQ. Exam questions and answers are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The course slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds genuine value with the "published only" scope and the explicit exclusion "Exam questions and answers are never returned" — a meaningful data-boundary disclosure. It stops short of describing behavior on missing inputs or error outcomes.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the data-exclusion caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and what is deliberately withheld. The only gap is behavior for a nonexistent or unpublished slug, which an agent would want to know.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter already carries a pattern, length bounds, and description. The description only restates lookup-by-slug and adds the published-only filter implication, which is close to the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get one published academy course by its slug") and even enumerates the payload contents (objectives, lessons, FAQ). The singular "one ... course" implicitly contrasts with the listing siblings such as list_courses, but no sibling is actually named, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 word "published" signals that only live courses are retrievable, which is a partial when-to-use constraint. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_courses or a search sibling, nor what to expect for an unpublished or unknown slug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one published auction house or platform by its slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral detail is 'published', implying unpublished records are not retrievable, which is genuinely useful but minimal. It says nothing about what happens when a slug does not match.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the identifier constraint placed at the end where it belongs. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 one-parameter read tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. It is only slightly thin on what 'published' excludes and what a miss returns, neither of which is critical.
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%: the single 'slug' parameter has a type, pattern, length bounds and description already. The description's 'by its slug' merely restates the schema and adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond it, 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one published auction house or platform) scoped by identifier (slug). The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural list_* and search_listings siblings, though it never names them. The slight mismatch between the tool name (get_listing) and the returned entity (auction house/platform) is at least clarified by the description.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'by its slug' phrasing signals you must already have a slug, which suggests this is a lookup after discovery via search_listings, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. No prerequisites or error/not-found behavior are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one affiliate product by its slug, with its page and outbound link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by stating the response includes the product's page and outbound link, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits not-found behavior, which keeps it below 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and the returned content are both stated in one pass.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is what happens when the slug does not resolve, which an agent would want to know.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter carries its own description plus a pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by its slug' restates rather than extends that, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one affiliate product') and scopes it to a single-item lookup, which implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling list_products. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'by its slug' implies the precondition that the caller already has a slug, which is useful context for choosing this over list_products or search_listings. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative appears.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the number of published auction houses and platforms, places and categories, and when the data last changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the response includes a 'last changed' timestamp indicating data freshness. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or payload shape, so a middle score fits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the returned aggregates, with no filler or repetition. Every clause (houses/platforms, places, categories, last-changed) earns its place by defining the payload.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so by naming the four aggregate values returned. It stops short of stating the format (keys, units, response envelope), but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no gap to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stats') and enumerates exactly what is counted: published auction houses/platforms, places, categories, plus last-changed time. This is inherently distinct from the list_* siblings that enumerate items rather than aggregate them, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for counts/metadata rather than full listings, because list_categories and list_places return items. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the listing tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List categories with their auction house or platform counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that results carry auction house/platform counts, a modest behavioral detail; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness of the list.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information: the verb, the resource, and the aggregate it returns.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and the mention of counts hints at the return shape. It could still say whether the list is exhaustive or whether counts are aggregated/filterable, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (categories), plus the payload detail (auction house or platform counts). It is clearly a read/list operation, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_places or list_sources beyond the resource noun, so an agent gets the what but not a sharp sibling contrast.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With siblings such as list_sources, list_places, get_stats, and search_listings available, the description offers nothing to help the agent choose among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the published academy courses with their level, length, pass mark and certificate validity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Only courses of this level. | |
| limit | No | Most courses to return. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond that: only published courses are returned, and each record includes level, length, pass mark and certificate validity. It does not mention ordering or what happens at the limit boundary, so it adds context without being rich.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped resource, then the returned fields. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the name.
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 two-parameter, zero-required read tool with complete annotations, the definition covers scope (published only) and return fields, which matters because no output schema exists. The remaining gap is result ordering and whether the 50-item cap implies truncation, which an agent might want to know before listing.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the level enum and limit bounds (1-50, default 50) fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'level' marginally reinforces the filter but adds no syntax, default, or pagination semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource (published academy courses), plus the fields each result carries. It is clearly distinguishable from get_course (single item) and the unrelated list_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the browse-all path as opposed to get_course for a single course, and that the optional level parameter narrows results. There is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion statement, and nothing about what to do if no courses match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List countries, regions and cities that have auction houses and platforms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that only places with auction houses/platforms are returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint comes in the same clause as the resource, so it is front-loaded and unambiguous.
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 zero-parameter read-only enumeration with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The only gap is what form the returned geography list takes and whether it is flat or nested.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing that needs explaining; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full unfiltered enumeration rather than a queried subset.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('countries, regions and cities') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('that have auction houses and platforms'). An agent can distinguish it from get_listing or search_listings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: use it to discover which geographies are covered before filtering searches. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like list_sources or list_categories, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the product categories with their product counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution beyond that is that results include product counts — useful, but no ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, and the key payload detail (counts) is front-loaded where the agent will read it.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description plus schema is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: with no output schema, the exact return shape (field names, ordering) is only alluded to.
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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-param tool 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the product categories') plus a distinguishing payload detail (product counts). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'list_categories', leaving an agent to guess which category lister to call.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only implied cue is that this variant returns counts, which the agent must infer rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the affiliate products, with the price each had on the day it was checked. Filter by product category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | A product category slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious data semantic — the price is a point-in-time snapshot from the day the product was checked, not a current price — but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the most decision-relevant detail (price snapshot semantics) front-loaded ahead of the filter note.
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 one-optional-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient and even hints at the returned fields (product + price). The one gap is the absence of any output schema combined with no note on pagination or result limits.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter carries its own type, slug pattern, and length bounds. The description only restates that the parameter filters by category, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the affiliate products") plus the returned payload (price as of the check date) and the filter dimension. It implicitly separates from get_product (single record) and list_categories, but never names a sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"Filter by product category" plus the optional parameter implies narrowing usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_product, list_product_categories, or list_categories instead. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List where the auction house or platform data comes from, with the license and refresh of each source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what each listed source entry contains (license and refresh cadence), which is useful behavioral context absent from the structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the payload contents with no filler. Every clause 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and what each entry carries, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not need to explain return values further, though it could note the expected shape or ordering.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (data sources) and clarifies the scope as auction house or platform data provenance. It is distinguishable from list_categories and list_places by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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 the use case (finding out where data comes from and its licensing/refresh terms) but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the implied usage is adequate, but nothing is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search published auction houses and platforms by text, place and category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search text, with at least one letter or digit. Matches name, categories, attributes, description and place. Typos fall back to close matches. | |
| city | No | City slug, from /places. | |
| sort | No | `relevance` needs `q` and is the default with it. `name` is the default without `q`. `recent` is newest first. | |
| limit | No | Items per page. | |
| cursor | No | `page.nextCursor` from the previous response. Opaque. Send the same filters and `limit`. | |
| region | No | Region slug, from /places. | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, any case. A country the directory does not cover, as listed in /places, gives 400. | |
| category | No | Category slug, from /categories. A parent slug also matches its children. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of real context beyond them — that only 'published' entities are returned — but says nothing about result shape or pagination behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable dimensions come after the resource, which is the right order for scanning.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention that results are paginated or what a result contains; the only hint at return shape is the cursor parameter referencing page.nextCursor. Combined with no sibling disambiguation, the definition is callable but leaves real gaps for an agent choosing between this and the list_* tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the eight parameters is already fully documented in the schema, including slug formats, the country 400 case, and cursor semantics. The description's 'by text, place and category' only loosely maps to q/city/region/country/category and adds no syntax beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (search) plus resource (published auction houses and platforms) and names the three search axes (text, place, category). The verb distinguishes it from get_listing and the list_* siblings, though the description never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'search' and the qualifier 'published'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing against siblings like list_places, list_categories, or get_listing, which overlap on the place/category facets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_courseget_listingget_productget_statslist_categorieslist_courseslist_placeslist_product_categorieslist_productslist_sourcessearch_listingsUS government surplus auctions: search live lots by ZIP radius, sold prices and Flip Scores.
Government Auctions MCP — physical-asset auctions (surplus, seized, forfeited, tax-deed) that…
Live listings, sold prices and resale scores from GovAuctions.app, the public surplus-auction site.
US Auctions MCP — every live US auction lot in the consolidated index, government AND commercial…
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
