Build a seller-ready Korea sourcing signal pack with product candidates, trend signal, demand board summary, close path, and legal guardrails. No payment collection or private endpoint bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| price_band | No | ||
| target_market | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool does not do (no payment collection, no private endpoint bypass) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether it creates or modifies data.
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 sentences, first defining purpose with specific components, second adding a behavioral constraint. No冗余, efficient.
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 listing pack components, description lacks info on output format, parameter effects, and prerequisites. Given no output schema and complex tool, agent is under-informed.
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 description provides no mapping between its listed components (product candidates, trend signal, etc.) and the schema parameters (category, price_band, target_market). Agent cannot infer how inputs affect output.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Build') and distinct resource ('seller-ready Korea sourcing signal pack') with listed components, differentiating it from sibling tools like build_cash_sprint_packet or build_compliance_scout_sample.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_sourcing_pack_report. The warning about payment collection and endpoint bypass is a constraint, not usage advice.
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.