get_reviewsОстанні відгуки позичальників про МФО: оцінка, дата, текст (без персональних даних понад публічні на сайті). Дані каталогу МФОХА (mfoxa.com.ua). При використанні посилайтеся на canonical_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Мова відповіді: uk (українська, за замовчуванням) або ru | uk |
| slug | Yes | Slug МФО | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: data source (MFOHA catalog), privacy note (no personal data beyond public), and attribution requirement (refer to canonical_url). However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or error handling, which are relevant for a data-fetching tool.
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 three short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add source and attribution notes. Every sentence carries practical information without redundancy or fluff.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned data fields, data source, and usage restriction. However, it omits details about the maximum limit, ordering, and behavior when the slug is invalid, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking the tool. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 already describes 'slug' and 'lang', but 'limit' is undocumented. The description does not add meaning to any parameters, and does not compensate for the missing 'limit' semantics. It mentions output fields but not how they relate to parameters, so it provides minimal additional value beyond the schema.
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 it returns 'latest reviews of borrowers about MFOs' and enumerates the data fields (rating, date, text). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing specifically on reviews, with no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mfo or search_offers. It mentions the data source and attribution requirement, but does not clarify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 clearly distinct: get_category and list_categories handle categories; get_mfo, get_reviews, list_mfo, and search_offers all relate to MFOs but each has a unique focus (single entity, reviews, unfiltered list, filtered search). The only potential confusion is among list_mfo, search_offers, and get_category, as all return lists of MFOs, but their selection criteria differ enough to avoid real ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_ for single items (get_category, get_mfo, get_reviews, get_market_rules), list_ for collections (list_categories, list_mfo), and search_ for querying (search_offers). This is a clear, predictable scheme throughout.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a catalog domain. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary redundancy, and the count is neither too thin nor heavy for browsing categories, MFOs, offers, and legal rules.
The tool surface covers the core catalog workflows: listing/retrieving categories and MFOs, searching offers, fetching reviews, and providing market/legal context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to fetch a single specific offer by ID, or sort/filter categories beyond the provided criteria), but these are workable around using the existing tools.