Medusa MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions, such as GetCartsId for retrieving a cart by ID, PostCarts for creating a cart, and PostCartsIdComplete for completing a cart. The naming and descriptions clearly differentiate between retrieval, creation, update, and other operations, with no overlapping or ambiguous tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using 'Get' for retrieval, 'Post' for creation or action, and specific identifiers like 'Id' or 'Code'. Examples include GetProductsId, PostCartsIdLineItems, and PostActor_typeAuth_provider, all adhering to a predictable and readable convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, making it cumbersome for agents to navigate and increasing the risk of misselection. While the server covers a broad e-commerce domain, a more streamlined set of 15-25 tools would be more appropriate for usability and coherence.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the e-commerce domain, including CRUD operations for carts, products, orders, customers, and authentication, as well as specialized actions like payment processing, shipping, and returns. There are no obvious gaps, ensuring agents can handle full workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 48 of 48 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a cart', implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a cart.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool creates a cart (a mutation), has no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, such as return values, error handling, or operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('fields') with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It does not explain what 'fields' should contain or its format, leaving it undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a cart' restates the tool name 'PostCarts' in different words, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'cart', but lacks detail about what a cart is in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdComplete' or 'PostCartsIdLineItems'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a payment collection, implying a write operation, but it does not disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens to existing payment collections. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and context. There is no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('fields') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no information about parameters. It does not explain what 'fields' represents, its format, or required values. Since the schema coverage is low and the description adds no parameter details, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a payment collection for a cart' specifies the verb (create) and resource (payment collection), and it adds context about usage 'during checkout' and that it 'holds the cart's payment sessions.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostPaymentCollectionsIdPaymentSessions' or 'PostCartsIdComplete,' which might have overlapping checkout-related functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context ('used during checkout'), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., whether a cart must exist first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdComplete' or 'PostPaymentCollectionsIdPaymentSessions,' which could be relevant in a checkout workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by additional capabilities in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or usage examples. Overall, it's efficient but not optimally organized for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or detailed parameter usage. For a list-retrieval tool with extensive filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references filtering by 'fields such as `handle`' and mentions sorting and pagination, but doesn't explain the purpose, format, or constraints of specific parameters like 'fields', 'order', 'q', '$and', '$or', or date objects. It adds minimal semantic value, insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'list of collections', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like GetCollectionsId (which likely retrieves a single collection) or other list-retrieval tools like GetProducts, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities, which implies usage scenarios, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetCollectionsId for single collections or other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, which gives some context about the tool's capabilities, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the default sorting or pagination behavior is, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of the returned data. The description is too minimal for a tool with 8 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that efficiently cover the main actions (retrieve, filter, sort, paginate). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to use the parameters effectively, what the return data looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a list-retrieval tool with filtering and pagination, more detail is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references filtering by 'fields such as `code`' and mentions sorting and pagination, but doesn't explain what any parameter actually does, their expected formats, or how they interact. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'fields', 'q', '$and', or '$or' parameters are for, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of currencies'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetCurrenciesCode', which appears to retrieve a specific currency by code rather than a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetCurrenciesCode' or other list-retrieval tools (e.g., 'GetCollections', 'GetProducts'). It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities but doesn't specify when these should be applied or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavioral traits like the ability to expand relations or select fields, but doesn't disclose critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid codes), or the response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds optional features. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure, and how parameters interact. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent under-informed about usage and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'code' is for currency identification and 'fields' for selecting return data, but doesn't explain the format (e.g., string patterns for 'code', comma-separated lists for 'fields'), required vs. optional status, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a currency by its code.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('currency'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'GetCurrencies' (which likely lists all currencies). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'GetCurrenciesId' (if that exists) or other currency-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'GetCurrencies' or 'GetRegions' (which might include currency data). This leaves the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), but lacks details on authentication requirements (e.g., logged-in customer context), error handling, rate limits, or response format. The mention of expanding relations and selecting fields hints at behavioral traits, but is vague and incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure, and clear parameter semantics, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'expand the address's relations' and 'select the fields that should be returned', which loosely relates to the 'fields' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'address_id' parameter or provide specific syntax, formats, or examples for either. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('an address of the logged-in customer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetCustomersMeAddresses', which likely retrieves all addresses rather than a specific one by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetCustomersMeAddresses' for listing addresses or other customer-related tools. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but this is about usage parameters, not contextual decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves orders for the logged-in customer, implying authentication is required, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's read-only. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds filtering, sorting, and pagination details efficiently. No wasted words, though it could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication requirements, response format, error handling, and full parameter usage. For a retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions filtering by 'id' and capabilities for sorting and pagination, but it doesn't explain the semantics of parameters like 'fields', '$and', '$or', or 'status', nor does it detail how sorting or pagination work. It adds some value but doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the orders of the logged-in customer.' It specifies the resource (orders) and scope (logged-in customer), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetOrdersId, which likely retrieves a single order by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination but doesn't compare to sibling tools like GetOrdersId for single-order retrieval or other list tools like GetProducts. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving an order and options for expanding relations or selecting fields, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence covers the core purpose, and the second adds useful detail without redundancy, making it well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, authentication needs, and response structure, which are crucial for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'id' is for the order ID and 'fields' is for selecting return fields, but doesn't explain the format of 'fields' (e.g., comma-separated list) or if 'id' is required. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'order by its ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetOrders' (which likely lists orders) or 'GetCartsId' (which retrieves carts), so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'GetOrders' for listing orders or 'GetCartsId' for carts, and there's no context on prerequisites like authentication or order existence. The description only states what the tool does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 16 parameters and complex filtering options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, using three sentences efficiently. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error scenarios, or detailed behavioral traits, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions filtering by 'id' and other fields, sorting, and pagination, without explaining the 16 parameters' purposes, formats, or relationships. This leaves most parameters undocumented and unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('product categories'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProductCategoriesId' or 'GetProducts', which also retrieve related data, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'GetProductCategoriesId' for a single category or 'GetProducts' for products. The description mentions filtering and sorting but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination but doesn't describe response format, pagination defaults, error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 23 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds some value, though more detail would be warranted given the parameter complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (23 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, authentication, or the semantics of most parameters. For a list retrieval tool with extensive filtering options, this leaves too much undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 23 parameters, the description fails to compensate. It mentions filtering by 'fields such as `id`' and sorting/pagination but doesn't explain the purpose of most parameters (like $and, $or, variants, cart_id, etc.) or provide syntax guidance. The description adds minimal value beyond what's evident from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of products'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling GetProductsId by indicating this returns a list rather than a single product. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like GetCollections or GetOrders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetProductsId (for single products) or other list endpoints. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a product, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The mention of expanding relations or selecting fields hints at optional features but lacks detail on how they work or their impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Retrieve a product by its ID') and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence could be more precise, as it vaguely hints at parameters without clear explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, such as explaining parameter interactions, expected output, or error conditions. The mention of expanding relations or selecting fields is insufficient for the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema. It mentions 'expand the product's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which loosely relates to the 'fields' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose or usage of the other 8 parameters (e.g., 'region_id', 'limit', 'order'). With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a product by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('product'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetProducts' (which likely lists multiple products). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ID-based retrieval tools like 'GetCollectionsId' or 'GetProductCategoriesId', which is why it's 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but doesn't specify when to use this over 'GetProducts' (for listing) or other ID-based tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list and mentions filtering/sorting/pagination, but doesn't describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key capabilities. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating filtering, sorting, and pagination more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, authentication requirements, or how to interpret the many undocumented parameters. For a list-retrieval tool with rich filtering capabilities, users need more guidance on usage and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 11 parameters, the description only vaguely mentions filtering by 'fields such as `id`' and sorting/pagination. It doesn't explain what most parameters do (like $and, $or, q, value, created_at, updated_at), their formats, or how they interact. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve a list of product tags') and resource ('product tags'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetProductTagsId, which appears to retrieve a single tag by ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetProductTagsId. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to other list-retrieval tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to expand relations and select fields, which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Retrieve' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second adds important functionality about expanding relations and selecting fields. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While it mentions key capabilities, it doesn't provide enough context about parameter usage, expected responses, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description must compensate but provides minimal help. It mentions 'fields' parameter indirectly ('select the fields that should be returned') but doesn't explain format or options. The 'id' parameter is implied but not explicitly described. The description adds some semantic context but doesn't adequately document the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'product tag by its ID', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling GetProductTags (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single tag via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based siblings like GetProductsId or GetProductCategoriesId beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but doesn't specify when these options are appropriate or what alternatives exist for similar operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a list-retrieval tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that cover the core purpose and main capabilities. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how to use the numerous filtering parameters, what data format is returned, error handling, or how this differs from similar list-retrieval tools. For a tool with this many undocumented parameters, much more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description must compensate but only mentions filtering by 'id' and general sorting/pagination. It doesn't explain what 'fields', '$and', '$or', 'q', 'value', 'created_at', or 'updated_at' parameters do, nor their expected formats. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of product types'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'GetProductTypesId' which presumably retrieves a single product type by ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetProductTypesId' for single records or other list-retrieval tools like 'GetProducts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to expand relations and select fields, which adds some context about optional functionality. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and optional features. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured by separating mandatory and optional aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on authentication, error responses, return format, and explicit behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (id, fields) is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'expand the product type's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which hints at the purpose of the 'fields' parameter but doesn't explain its format, syntax, or valid values. It doesn't address the 'id' parameter at all. This partial compensation is inadequate given the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'product type by its ID', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetProductTypes (which likely lists all product types) by focusing on a single ID lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like GetProductsId, leaving minor room for improvement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or when to choose this over other retrieval tools like GetProductTypes. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how pagination works (e.g., default limits), error conditions, or the response format. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second outlines capabilities. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, error handling, authentication needs, or detailed parameter usage. For a list-retrieval tool with extensive filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 undocumented parameters. It only mentions filtering by 'id' and hints at sorting/pagination without explaining any parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. Key parameters like 'fields', 'q', '$and', '$or', 'currency_code' are completely unaddressed, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of regions'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling 'GetRegionsId' by indicating this returns a list rather than a single region. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'GetCollections' or 'GetProducts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios where filtering by 'id' is appropriate or when to choose this over 'GetRegionsId' for single-region retrieval. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and optional expansions/field selection, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation, though it correctly implies a non-destructive action without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by optional features. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating mandatory vs. optional aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic retrieval action but misses critical context like response format, error cases, authentication needs, and detailed parameter usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in a complex API environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (id and fields), and the description only vaguely references 'expand the region's relations or select the fields' without explaining what 'fields' entails (e.g., format, allowed values) or providing examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a region by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetRegions' (which likely lists regions) or 'GetRegionsId' (which appears to be the same tool based on naming), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'GetRegions' for listing regions or other 'Get...Id' tools for different resources. It mentions optional expansions and field selection but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list and mentions sorting/pagination, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included). For a read operation with 8 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. The two sentences are efficient, though the second sentence could be more polished (e.g., 'Shipping options can also be sorted or paginated'). There is no wasted verbiage, but it under-specifies given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format. For a retrieval tool with filtering and pagination capabilities, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'cart_id' parameter, leaving 7 other parameters (fields, offset, limit, order, $and, $or, is_return) undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify the purpose or usage of most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Retrieve a list of shipping options for a cart.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('shipping options for a cart'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostShippingOptionsIdCalculate' or 'PostCartsIdShippingMethods', which might handle related but different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions that the cart's ID is required, but offers no advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'PostShippingOptionsIdCalculate' (which calculates shipping) or 'PostCartsIdShippingMethods' (which might apply shipping methods). There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions expanding relations and selecting fields, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-free but potentially complex operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds optional capabilities in a second sentence. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, error conditions, authentication, and response structure, which are crucial for a retrieval tool that might involve complex field selection or relation expansion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'fields' parameter usage ('select the fields that should be returned') and hints at 'id' for retrieval, but doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID requirements, fields syntax), purpose of 'fields', or default behaviors, adding minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a cart by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'GetCarts' (which likely lists multiple carts) or 'GetCartsId' vs other 'GetXId' tools, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid cart ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetCarts' for listing carts or 'PostCarts' for creating one, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sorting and pagination capabilities, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (especially with no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that directly address core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions sorting and pagination, which hints at the purpose of 'order', 'offset', and 'limit' parameters, but doesn't explain 'fields' or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of return reasons'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetReturnReasonsId' by indicating this retrieves a list rather than a specific item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval siblings like 'GetCollections' or 'GetProducts' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare to sibling tools like 'GetReturnReasonsId' for single items or other list tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'place an order,' implying a write operation that likely mutates data and triggers downstream processes, but fails to detail critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the cart is archived or deleted post-completion, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a cart completion tool (likely involving mutations and order creation), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, it fails to provide necessary context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but does not. It mentions no parameters, leaving 'id' and 'fields' undocumented. Without explanation, it's unclear what 'id' refers to (e.g., cart ID) or what 'fields' might contain (e.g., order metadata). This lack of semantic detail hinders effective tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Complete a cart') and outcome ('place an order'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that primarily retrieve data (e.g., GetCartsId) or modify cart components (e.g., PostCartsIdLineItems). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'complete' entails beyond ordering, leaving some ambiguity about the final state of the cart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the cart must have items or be in a specific state) or contrast with other cart-related tools like PostCartsIdCustomer for updating customer details. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the action is idempotent, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, which is insufficient for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions adding a 'product variant' but doesn't explain how 'id' (likely cart ID) and 'fields' (likely variant details) are used, leaving their semantics unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('product variant as a line item in the cart'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdLineItemsLine_id' (which likely modifies existing line items), leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'PostCartsIdLineItemsLine_id' for updates or other cart-related tools. It also lacks prerequisites, like whether a cart must exist first or how to handle errors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on invalid inputs, or any rate limits—critical gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, achieving optimal conciseness for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output expectations, failing to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id', 'line_id', or 'fields' represent (e.g., cart ID, line item ID, JSON string of updates), leaving all three parameters semantically undefined beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('a line item's details in the cart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdLineItems' (which likely creates line items) or 'PostCartsIdCustomer' (which updates customer info), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cart and line item), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'PostCartsIdLineItems' for creation or 'PostCartsIdComplete' for finalizing the cart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Add,' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether promotions are applied immediately, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions adding promotions to a cart, which hints at the 'id' parameter for cart identification and 'fields' for promotion data, but provides no details on format, constraints, or examples, failing to adequately clarify the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and target resource ('a list of promotions to a cart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like PostCartsIdLineItems or PostCartsIdShippingMethods, which also add things to carts, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing cart ID or how it relates to other cart-modification tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates taxes, implying a read-only or computational operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., tax amounts or lines). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Calculate the cart's tax lines and amounts.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, behavior, and output. For a tax calculation tool, this leaves critical gaps, such as how results are returned or what inputs are needed, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id, fields) with 0% description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'id' refers to (e.g., cart ID) or what 'fields' controls (e.g., specific tax details to return). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the cart's tax lines and amounts.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('cart's tax lines and amounts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdComplete' or 'PostCartsIdShippingMethods', which also operate on carts but for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a cart ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'GetCartsId' for retrieving cart details. Without this context, an agent might struggle to apply it correctly in workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Calculate' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential side effects (e.g., updating cart state), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with cart data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a calculation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, behavioral context, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how and when to use this tool effectively in the broader cart and shipping workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'id' (e.g., cart ID, shipping option ID) or 'fields' parameters, their formats, or required values. Without this, the agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool correctly, making the description insufficient for the two undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Calculate') and resource ('price of a shipping option in a cart'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdShippingMethods' or 'GetShippingOptions', which might handle related shipping operations, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'PostCartsIdShippingMethods' (which might set shipping methods) and 'GetShippingOptions' (which might list options), there's no indication of prerequisites, context (e.g., after adding items to a cart), or exclusions, relying solely on the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the response format. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: retrieval, filtering capability, and sorting/pagination options. There's no redundant or wasted text, though it could be more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or default behavior (e.g., what happens if no parameters are provided). For a retrieval tool with many options, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions filtering by 'country_code' and hints at sorting/pagination, but only covers 1 of 8 parameters explicitly (country_code) and vaguely references others (order, offset, limit). It doesn't explain fields like 'q', 'city', or 'postal_code', leaving most parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('addresses of the logged-in customer'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like GetCustomersMe (which retrieves customer info) and GetCustomersMeAddressesAddress_id (which retrieves a specific address). However, it doesn't specify whether this returns all addresses or a subset by default.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving addresses with optional filtering, sorting, or pagination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like GetCustomersMeAddressesAddress_id for a single address. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of expanding relations and selecting fields hints at some functionality but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and optional features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds useful information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication, error cases, response structure, or detailed parameter usage. For a retrieval tool with two parameters, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions expanding relations and selecting fields, which loosely maps to the 'fields' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It doesn't explain the 'id' parameter or provide specifics on how to use 'fields' (e.g., syntax, allowed values). The baseline is 3 due to the schema's lack of descriptions, but the description adds only marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'return reason by its ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetReturnReasons' (which likely lists all return reasons), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetReturnReasons' or other retrieval tools. It mentions optional expansions and field selection, but this is about how to use the tool, not when to choose it over other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool retrieves a JWT token, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or token validity. For an auth-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the token's usage. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (auth tool with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, return values (e.g., token format), error handling, or security considerations, which are critical for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'auth_provider' parameter (e.g., what values it accepts, its role, or examples). Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'retrieves a registration JWT token of a customer that hasn't been registered yet.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('registration JWT token'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'PostCustomers' (which creates customers) by indicating this token is used for subsequent customer creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider' (which might handle other auth flows), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating the token is for 'a customer that hasn't been registered yet' and is 'used in the header of requests that create a customer,' suggesting this should be called before customer creation. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., vs. other auth tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_providerCallback') or mention prerequisites/alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a password reset (a mutation) and requires a bearer token in the Authorization header, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., if the user is logged in automatically). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise—two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and authentication method. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the link to external docs, while helpful, doesn't clutter the main text. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter (undocumented), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and auth method but misses critical details: parameter meaning, response format, error cases, and side effects. For a password reset operation, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('auth_provider') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. The description mentions a 'reset-password token' but doesn't clarify if this is the 'auth_provider' parameter or something else. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is poor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reset a customer's password using a reset-password token.' It specifies the verb ('reset'), resource ('customer's password'), and mechanism ('reset-password token'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'PostActor_typeAuth_providerResetPassword' (which likely generates the token), leaving some ambiguity about their relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by referencing the token generation API, suggesting this tool should be used after obtaining a token. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other auth tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider' or 'PostSession'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for a registration token in the request header, which is useful context about authentication requirements. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors such as what data the 'fields' parameter expects, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Register'), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Register a customer'), though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage instructions more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It mentions the token prerequisite but doesn't explain the parameter, expected behavior, or response format, making it inadequate for proper tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('fields') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain what 'fields' represents, what format it expects, or what data is required for customer registration. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear despite the low baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a customer'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider_register' or 'PostSession', which might also handle user/customer registration in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning the prerequisite step of using '/auth/customer/emailpass/register' API route to obtain a registration token. This implies when to use this tool (after token retrieval), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it with alternatives like other registration-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the action is a cancellation and that it applies to a previously requested transfer, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether the transfer is reversible after cancellation), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and context without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical details (e.g., parameter hints), but overall it's appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use. The reference to another API route adds some context but doesn't fill these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and fields) with 0% description coverage, meaning neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters represent, their formats, or how they should be used, failing to compensate for the schema gap. For example, it's unclear if 'id' refers to the order ID or transfer ID, or what 'fields' does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('an order transfer that the logged-in customer previously requested'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'PostOrdersIdTransferDecline' which might serve a similar cancellation purpose, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by referencing that the transfer must have been 'previously requested' and by linking to the request API route, providing some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'PostOrdersIdTransferDecline' or other order management tools, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool declines a transfer and references an admin API route, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and context. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the action more directly at the beginning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, behavioral outcomes, parameter usage, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id, fields) with 0% description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they're used in the decline operation. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Decline an order transfer previously requested') and identifies the resource ('order transfer'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostOrdersIdTransferAccept' or 'PostOrdersIdTransferCancel', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context by mentioning that the transfer was 'previously requested' and referencing the admin API route, which implies this is used after a transfer request exists. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'PostOrdersIdTransferAccept' or 'PostOrdersIdTransferCancel', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the transfer requires confirmation via another API, which adds useful context about the workflow. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., order status changes), error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and next steps, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at a confirmation step but misses details on parameters, behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, effects), and return values, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and fields) with 0% description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., that 'id' is the order ID or what 'fields' controls), failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request an order to be transfered') and the target ('to the logged-in customer's account'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like PostOrdersIdTransferAccept, PostOrdersIdTransferCancel, or PostOrdersIdTransferDecline, which all relate to order transfers but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by referencing the logged-in customer and linking to the Accept Order Transfer API for confirmation, suggesting this is an initial request step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose transfer over cancellation or decline), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions expanding relations and selecting fields, which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a collection by its ID') and efficiently adds optional functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, error handling, and return values. For a tool in this context, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters ('id' and 'fields'), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'expand the collection's relations' and 'select the fields that should be returned', which loosely relates to the 'fields' parameter but doesn't explain syntax, format, or provide examples. The 'id' parameter is implied but not explicitly addressed. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a collection by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetCollections' (which likely lists collections) by focusing on a single collection via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like 'GetProductsId', leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a specific collection by ID, as opposed to listing all collections with 'GetCollections'. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other ID-based tools (e.g., 'GetProductsId') or mention prerequisites like authentication. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required 'region_id' parameter, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), what format the list returns, whether there's pagination (though offset/limit parameters suggest it), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the most critical usage requirement. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it does cover.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only covers one parameter's purpose and doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return format, or usage context beyond the basic region requirement. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering/sorting parameters, this leaves too much undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description only explains one parameter ('region_id' as required for region-specific retrieval). It doesn't mention the purpose of 'fields', 'offset', 'limit', or 'order' parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('payment providers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like GetRegions or GetCurrencies by focusing specifically on payment providers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval tools like GetProducts or GetOrders beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating that 'region_id' is required to retrieve providers enabled in that region, which implies this tool should be used when needing region-specific payment providers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and optional expansions/field selection, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavioral traits like rate limits or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds key optional functionalities. It's front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at some parameter usage but lacks details on required vs. optional parameters, error conditions, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with multiple options, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'expand the product category's relations' (hinting at 'include_ancestors_tree' and 'include_descendants_tree') and 'select the fields that should be returned' (hinting at 'fields'), but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter or provide specifics on syntax, formats, or defaults. This adds some meaning but insufficiently covers the 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('product category by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'GetProductCategories' (which presumably lists categories) by specifying retrieval of a single category via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like 'GetProductsId' or 'GetCollectionsId', so it's not fully sibling-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a specific product category by ID, as opposed to listing all categories with 'GetProductCategories'. It mentions optional expansions and field selection, suggesting when to use those features. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. other ID-based retrievals) or clear alternatives, leaving some context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a mutation operation ('Set'), implying it modifies data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens to existing cart data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides contextual usage. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the 'why' but lacks essential details about parameters, behavior, and expected outcomes. The context signals indicate high complexity that isn't adequately addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'id' and 'fields' represent (e.g., cart ID and customer data fields). With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds zero semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the customer of the cart') and the resource ('cart'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'PostCarts' (create cart) or 'PostCartsIdComplete' (complete cart) by focusing on customer assignment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools that might modify cart properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an example use case ('when you create the cart for a guest customer, then they log in with their account'), which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., when to use 'PostCustomers' for customer creation instead). The guidance is helpful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that this tool 'accepts' a transfer, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently explain the tool's purpose and prerequisite context. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the prerequisite information more tightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on parameters, return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and fields) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they should be used. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'accept' and the resource 'an order to be transferred to a customer's account', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like PostOrdersIdTransferCancel or PostOrdersIdTransferDecline beyond mentioning the action of acceptance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining that the transfer must have been previously requested via specific API routes (store or admin), indicating when this tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like the decline or cancel tools, but the prerequisite context is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a return' which implies a write operation, and mentions admin processing, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds useful context about admin processing. There's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical details about behavior, response format, and usage context. While it's complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level, it doesn't adequately prepare an agent for successful invocation given the complexity of creating returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a return') and resource ('for an order's items'), with additional context about admin processing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetOrders or GetReturnReasons by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Post tools like PostCarts or PostPaymentCollections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions admin processing but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of other return-related tools or what state an order must be in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: validation of auth, token return on success, and requirement to pass all query parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. The description adds value but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes extraneous details like library recommendations ('react-jwt') and steps for handling missing 'actor_id', which may not be essential for tool selection. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second paragraph adds operational advice that could be streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by validation and token return), the description is incomplete. It misses parameter documentation, error scenarios, and output details. The operational advice partially compensates but doesn't fully address the gaps for a tool with such sparse structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('auth_provider'), and the description doesn't mention this parameter at all. It focuses on query parameters like 'code' and 'state', which aren't in the schema. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameter undocumented and unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: validating third-party authentication and returning a token. It specifies the verb 'validates' and resource 'authentication with the third-party provider', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider' (initiates auth) or 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider_register' (registers customer). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'PostActor_typeAuth_providerResetPassword'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'used by your storefront or frontend application when a third-party provider redirects to it after authentication.' It implies usage after redirection from a provider, distinguishing it from initial auth tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider' for starting the flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation ('Add'), implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), and expected outcomes, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'cart' (implied for 'id') and 'shipping method' (implied for 'fields'), but doesn't explain what 'fields' should contain (e.g., format, required data) or provide examples. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a shipping method to a cart') and the resource ('cart'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'PostCartsIdComplete' or 'PostCartsIdLineItems', which also modify carts but for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'when the customer chooses their preferred shipping option.' This gives practical guidance, but it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'GetShippingOptions' for browsing options first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'initialize and add a payment session,' implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it lacks details on critical behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level action and context but lacks details on parameters, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, which are essential for effective use in a checkout scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (id and fields) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent, such as 'id' likely being the payment collection ID or 'fields' specifying payment session details. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Initialize and add a payment session to a payment collection.' It specifies the verb ('initialize and add'), resource ('payment session'), and context ('to a payment collection'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'PostPaymentCollections' or 'PostCartsIdComplete', which might also relate to payment or checkout processes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'during checkout, where you create a payment collection for the cart, then initialize a payment session for the payment provider that the customer chooses.' This gives a specific scenario and sequence of actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as other payment-related tools, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is safe, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no customer is logged in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least clarifies the scope (logged-in customer).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or sibling differentiation. It's minimally adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps in behavioral context and output expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'expand the customer's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which adds meaning to the 'fields' parameter by explaining its purpose for customization. However, it doesn't detail syntax, format, or examples, leaving the parameter partially documented. With one parameter and some added context, this meets the baseline for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('logged-in customer'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it retrieves the current authenticated customer rather than a general customer list or specific customer by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'GetCustomers' (which doesn't exist in siblings) or 'GetCustomersMeAddresses', so it's not fully sibling-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing the logged-in customer's data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'GetCustomersMeAddresses' for addresses or other customer-related tools. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, which hints at usage for customization, but lacks clear when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a JWT token for use in headers, and with third-party providers, it returns a 'location' property for redirection. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements (e.g., if credentials are needed), rate limits, error handling, or what happens on failure. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but lacks depth on operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary context for third-party providers. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication with potential third-party flows), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral aspect (third-party redirection), but lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, and response structure. For an authentication tool, more guidance on inputs and outputs would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the 'auth_provider' parameter. It doesn't explain what values are expected (e.g., 'google', 'facebook'), whether it's required, or its role in authentication. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Authenticate a customer and receive the JWT token to be used in the header of subsequent requests.' It specifies the verb (authenticate) and resource (customer), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'PostSession' or 'PostAdminAuthTokenRefresh' by focusing on customer authentication with JWT token return. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider_register' or 'PostActor_typeAuth_providerResetPassword', which are related authentication tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for authenticating customers and obtaining a JWT token for subsequent requests. It also specifies a special case: 'When used with a third-party provider, such as Google, the request returns a `location` property. You redirect to the specified URL in your storefront to continue authentication with the third-party service.' This gives guidance on handling third-party providers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'PostSession' for non-JWT authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool's utility but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., invalidating old tokens), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explain usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the 'why' but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or what the refreshed token entails. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('refresh') and resource ('authentication token of a customer'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'PostSession' or other auth-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('after authenticating a customer with a third-party service' and 'when you don't want customers to re-login every day'), which helps guide usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it generates a token, emits an event ('auth.password_reset'), and requires external handling (listening to the event and using a notification provider). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating that notifications are sent via a Notification Module Provider) and could be more streamlined. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's role in the workflow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involves event emission and external workflows), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's behavior and integration points well but lacks details on parameters, error handling, and output format, which are important for a mutation tool with no structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'auth_provider' parameter. It doesn't explain what this parameter is, its purpose, or possible values. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a reset password token for a customer.' It specifies the exact action (generate token) and resource (customer), distinguishing it from siblings like PostActor_typeAuth_providerUpdate which updates passwords. The description avoids tautology by explaining what the tool does versus what it doesn't do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states this tool doesn't reset passwords or send notifications directly, and it names the alternative tool 'Reset Password API route' for updating passwords. It also explains the workflow: use this tool to generate a token, then listen to an event, then send a notification, then use the alternative tool to update the password.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('Set'), requires authentication (JWT token), and has a prerequisite (previous authentication via a specific API route). However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or side effects (e.g., how the session ID affects subsequent requests).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's action, and the second specifies prerequisites. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens after setting the session, error scenarios) and output. For a tool with no structured data, more context on behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage prerequisites. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present, and the description adds context without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the cookie session ID of a customer') and identifies the resource ('customer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that primarily retrieve data (e.g., GetCartsId, GetProducts) or handle other operations like authentication or payments. It avoids tautology by explaining the tool's function beyond its name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('The customer must be previously authenticated with the `/auth/customer/{provider}` API route first') and provides a prerequisite (JWT token required in the header). It distinguishes usage from sibling tools by focusing on session management rather than data retrieval or other operations listed in the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![medusa-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SGFGOV/medusa-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SGFGOV/medusa-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![medusa-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SGFGOV/medusa-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SGFGOV/medusa-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SGFGOV/medusa-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server