Vinted Scraper & Vinted API: 26 Countries, Deals & Alerts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields: the pay-per-result model on the agent's Apify account with specific unit prices (run start $0.003, item $0.001/$0.002, sold detection $0.002), which is real cost-relevant information. It still omits return-format and rate/limit behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition, and the pricing sentence is dense but relevant. No filler, though the pricing breakdown is fairly granular for a description slot.

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 an eight-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what comes back and what it costs. The notable gap is usage guidance (when to prefer this over the other second-hand tools), so it is strong 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the eight parameters are already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description's mention of buyer-fee pricing and a cross-country price summary describes outputs rather than clarifying any parameter. It adds little parameter meaning 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?

States a specific resource (Vinted listings) and scope (up to 26 countries) plus the data returned (price with buyer fees, brand, size, condition, seller rating, cross-country comparison). Naming Vinted directly distinguishes it from siblings like search_second_hand_europe and search_kleinanzeigen. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those alternatives, so not a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the second-hand siblings, nor any prerequisites for use. The only usage-flavored hint ('newest = best for alerts and sniping deals') lives in the schema, not the description. Context is implied at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.