actuele_salesWelke supplementmerken nú een sale hebben in de gekozen markt, met hoogste korting en voorbeeldproduct.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merk | No | ||
| markt | No | Markt/land voor prijzen, links en codes (standaard nl). | nl |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result focuses on current sales, highest discount, and an example product. It does not disclose details like output size, whether multiple brands are returned, or link/code behavior beyond what the markt parameter description hints at.
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?
A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the essential qualifiers: current sales, supplement brands, selected market, highest discount, and example product. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It gives a solid gist but leaves the 'merk' parameter semantics unclear and does not describe the exact output shape or how the highest discount is determined. Given the simple tool surface, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 schema documents 'markt' with an enum, default, and description, and the tool description echoes both 'supplementmerken' and 'gekozen markt' to map to the parameters. However, 'merk' has no schema description, and the tool description does not clarify whether it is an optional filter, how it interacts with 'markt', or what happens when it is omitted.
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 identifies what the tool returns: supplement brands currently on sale in the selected market, with the highest discount and an example product. Although phrased as a question rather than an imperative, it names a specific resource and scope, and 'nú' distinguishes it from historical or expected-sale tools.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need current supplement-brand sales in a market, highlighting the highest discount. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use them, so some inference is required, but the 'current sale' framing makes the intended use reasonably obvious.
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 target distinct concerns: current sales, expected sales, weekly deals, price history, product reviews, discount codes, and search are clearly separable. The main risk is that actuele_sales, verwachte_sales, and week_deals all deal with 'sales/deals', but their temporal and channel scopes are explicit enough to prevent serious misselection.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are Dutch descriptive phrases, which gives a coherent feel. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun because most names are noun phrases like product_oordeel and prijs_historie, with zoek_producten as the only verb-led exception, so the set is consistent but not perfectly uniform.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a supplement deals/reviews domain. Each tool covers a distinct information need without obvious redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full user journey for supplement research: searching products, checking current deals, anticipating future sales, validating discounts with price history, retrieving discount codes, reading quality scores, and understanding the scoring methodology. No significant operational gap is apparent for the stated domain.