Today's best deals, ranked by LMK's deal-quality scoring (discount depth, price sweet spot, merchant quality). Optionally filter by category slug or minimum discount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| minDiscountPercent | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deals | Yes | ||
| generatedAt | Yes | ||
| totalDealCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by explaining the ranking logic and time-bounded nature (today's deals), but does not disclose pagination or error handling.
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 efficient sentences front-load the core purpose and key filters, with no redundant or irrelevant information.
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?
The description covers purpose, scoring criteria, and main filters. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is covered. Missing details like default limit behavior or pagination, but adequate for typical use.
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%, but the description explains two of three parameters (category and minDiscountPercent) with meaningful usage context. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but the coverage is above what the schema alone 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves 'Today's best deals' with specific ranking criteria (LMK's deal-quality scoring). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product or get_price_history by focusing on deals and their quality ranking.
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 mentions optional filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given, though the tool is clearly for deal discovery.
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 are distinct, but 'fetch' and 'get_product' have overlapping functionality (both provide full detail and buying options), and 'search' vs 'search_catalog' could confuse agents about which to use for general search. Otherwise clear.
Predominantly uses 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and 'search' for search tools, but 'fetch' and 'lookup_catalog' deviate slightly from the pattern, reducing consistency.
13 tools is well-scoped for a commerce server covering product discovery, pricing, deals, collections, and gift ideas without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key product research and price comparison workflows, but lacks tools for user interaction (e.g., wishlists, purchasing) or multi-product comparisons, which would enhance completeness.
