Build an operator-confirmed draft invoice packet with line items, buyer wording, payment-method placeholders, and operator checks. Draft only; no invoice issued, payment link generated, sending, or collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer | No | ||
| offer | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| target_market | No | ||
| invoice_method | No | ||
| delivery_format | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool produces a draft only and lists actions it does not perform (issue invoice, generate payment link, send, collect). This gives good transparency about its non-destructive, pre-final nature. However, it does not mention any authentication or rate limits.
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 a single concise sentence with an additional clarifying sentence about what is not done. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by grouping the listed contents into parameter hints.
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 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain required inputs, prerequisites, or return values. The warning about 'draft only' is helpful but leaves many gaps for effective tool invocation.
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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'line items, buyer wording, payment-method placeholders' but does not map these to the parameters (buyer, offer, company, etc.). It adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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 it builds a 'draft invoice packet' with specific contents like line items and buyer wording, and explicitly lists what it does NOT do (no invoice issued, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_cash_sprint_packet' or 'build_delivery_pack', which may cause confusion.
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 when to use (when a draft invoice packet is needed) and what it does not do (no actual invoice or payment), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or which alternative tool to consider. The sibling tools are diverse, but none clearly serve as an alternative for issuing an actual invoice.
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.