Generate an Amazon affiliate sales funnel from a product URL. Returns a hosted landing page URL. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axes | No | Style axes, all 0-100, omitted default to 50. Use list_axes for details. | |
| store_id | No | Amazon Associates Store ID (e.g. mystore-20). Optional. | |
| amazon_url | Yes | Amazon product URL (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DWN2KR9W) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it generates a funnel and returns a URL, with no account needed. However, it does not disclose whether the generation is synchronous or asynchronous, or mention any rate limits or side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 tool with 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate, specifying the return type (URL). However, the presence of get_funnel_status hints at possible asynchronous behavior, which is not addressed.
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 100%, and the description adds valuable information beyond the schema: for the 'axes' parameter, it notes defaults (50) and directs to list_axes for details. The required 'amazon_url' and optional 'store_id' are clearly described with patterns and examples.
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 the tool generates an Amazon affiliate sales funnel from a product URL and returns a hosted landing page URL. It differentiates from siblings like get_funnel_status (status check) and list_axes (axis details).
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 mentions 'No account needed,' providing a usage condition. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the purpose is distinct: generation vs. status checking or listing axes.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generating a funnel, checking its status, and listing style axes. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (generate_funnel, get_funnel_status, list_axes).
3 tools is appropriate for a focused funnel generator, each earning its place in the workflow.
Core generation workflow is covered (create, status, style options), but missing update/delete operations that might be needed for iterative refinement.