Build an operator-confirmed paid delivery scope pack with deliverables, acceptance criteria, QA checklist, buyer wording, proof links, and guardrails. Does not start delivery, send files, invoice, or collect payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | No | ||
| offer | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| target_market | No | ||
| delivery_format | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'operator-confirmed' but does not explain behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or whether the pack is stored or sent. Only functional boundaries are given.
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 pack the purpose and limitations without any fluff. Every sentence provides 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?
Given the complexity of building a delivery pack with multiple components and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks detail on process, prerequisites, and outcome. It fails to provide a complete picture.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning to them.
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 states a specific verb 'Build' and a specific resource 'operator-confirmed paid delivery scope pack', listing components and explicitly distinguishing from siblings by stating what the tool does not do (start delivery, send files, invoice, or collect payment).
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?
Description implies usage context by listing what the tool builds and excludes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for use.
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.