Busca ofertas vigentes do Menor Preço Hoje em Lages, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Use quando o usuário procurar produtos, preços, promoções ou supermercados locais.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Produto procurado. Exemplos: costela bovina, leite, arroz. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and does not mention return shape, pagination, data freshness, or other constraints. It adds minimal behavioral value beyond the action itself.
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 short sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide a clear usage trigger. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough geographic and domain context and defines the result scope ('ofertas vigentes'). It lacks detail on response format, but the overall complexity is low and the input schema fully covers the parameter.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds user-intent context for the query but no additional syntax, format, or value constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a clear action ('Busca ofertas vigentes') on a specific resource (Menor Preço Hoje offers in Lages, SC) and domain. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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?
Explicitly says when to use ('Use quando o usuário procurar produtos, preços, promoções ou supermercados locais'). It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing relative to the sibling tools.
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.
best_price, compare_offers, and search_offers all relate to product pricing and offers, which could cause an agent to choose incorrectly. However, each has a distinct output: best_price for the single lowest price, compare_offers for multi-supermarket comparison, and search_offers for general discovery.
All tools use lowercase snake_case and most follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_offers, list_markets, search_offers). best_price and top_offers deviate slightly by leading with a noun/adjective, but the style remains consistent and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a local price-comparison service, covering discovery, comparison, and market listing without redundancy.
The tool set covers the main user intents: finding the best price, comparing offers, searching products, and listing markets. Minor gaps like retrieving individual market details or historical prices exist but are not core to the stated purpose.