Lookup MFDS cosmetics ingredient source mapping for K-beauty sellers. Official-source mapping only, not legal advice or import clearance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| cas | No | ||
| claim | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| ingredient | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the mapping is from official sources only and disclaims legal advice. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens for unmatched queries.
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 concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second clarifies limitations. No unnecessary words, all content is relevant.
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 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for effective tool usage. It lacks parameter guidance and return value expectations, leaving agents with incomplete information.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (q, cas, claim, country, ingredient). An agent cannot determine how to use each parameter or their relationships from the description alone.
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 the tool performs a lookup of MFDS cosmetics ingredient source mapping for K-beauty sellers. The verb 'Lookup' is specific, and the resource is uniquely identified, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with stocks, real estate, or other data.
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 provides context that the tool is for K-beauty sellers and explicitly states it is not legal advice or import clearance, setting appropriate expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, though sibling tools are sufficiently different.
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.