Build operator-confirmed Upwork/Fiverr/Contra/LinkedIn/Reddit listing copy, price tiers, buyer requirements, proposal templates, proof links, and guardrails. Does not create accounts, post, submit proposals, DM, email, invoice, or collect payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| target_market | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes outputs (list of deliverables) and non-actions (not posting, etc.), but does not disclose behavioral traits like required authentication, rate limits, or whether it modifies existing data. It is transparent about what it produces but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence lists what it builds, the second clarifies limitations. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool has 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate for purpose and limitations but lacks parameter documentation and return format details. It helps distinguish from siblings but is incomplete for full autonomous use.
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 0%. The description mentions 'operator-confirmed' but does not explain the three parameters (offer, category, target_market). Their meaning is left to inference, and the description adds minimal value beyond the param names.
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 builds listing packs for multiple freelance platforms, listing specific components (copy, price tiers, etc.) and explicitly stating what it does not do (create accounts, post, etc.). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_delivery_pack or build_sourcing_pack_report.
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 usage for preparing freelance listings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Does not' part clarifies limitations but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Usage context is inferred but not directly guided.
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.