Build an operator-confirmed cash sprint packet with target revenue math, buyer segment queues, close scripts, proof links, and guardrails. No sending, invoicing, or payment collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usd_krw | No | ||
| target_krw | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description partially discloses behavior by stating it builds a packet and lists included components. However, it does not clarify if this is a mutation or read operation, or what side effects occur (e.g., persistence).
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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with specific verb and resource. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description lacks parameter explanation and does not specify the output format (e.g., document, data structure). The agent lacks enough context to fully understand how to use the tool.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters ('usd_krw', 'target_krw'). The parameter names alone are insufficient for an agent to determine format or required values.
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?
Description clearly states it builds an 'operator-confirmed cash sprint packet' and lists specific components. Explicitly excludes sending, invoicing, and payment collection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_invoice_draft_packet.
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 explains what the tool does and what it does not do, indicating it is for building packets, not for sending or invoicing. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly for those excluded actions.
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 create_buy_ship_cart_order and create_direct_buy_ship_order are nearly identical, causing potential confusion. Additionally, build_buyer_discovery_queue and build_cash_sprint_packet overlap in targeting buyer segments.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (build_, get_, create_, search_) with consistent snake_case, making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
With 26 tools covering diverse domains (stock market, real estate, tourism, sourcing, etc.), the scope feels broad and somewhat bloated. A more focused set would improve coherence.
The tool set covers many aspects of Korea data and seller workflows, but notable gaps exist: no tools for actual listing posting, sending communications, or completing transactions, as many build_ tools explicitly exclude those steps.