Generate synthetic purchase request payloads for basic, physical, or digital goods scenarios that pass the shared validator, enabling integration testing.
Generate a synthetic basic_purchase, physical_goods or digital_goods request; only returns payloads that pass the shared validator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenario | Yes | ||
| includeOptionalFields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral guarantee beyond that — returned payloads are guaranteed to pass the shared validator — but says nothing about output shape, repetition, or how includeOptionalFields affects the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with the key capability front-loaded and no filler. Listing the enum values duplicates schema data, which is minor waste but the overall size is well judged.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a small two-parameter generator with no output schema, the definition covers intent and output validity but leaves the boolean parameter and the returned payload's content undefined. An agent can call it, but only by guessing what includeOptionalFields does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it leaves includeOptionalFields completely unexplained. It restates the scenario values that the schema's enum already lists, adding no meaning about how the scenarios differ.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Generate a synthetic ... request') and enumerates the exact scenario values the tool produces, so an agent knows precisely what it emits. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling validate_order_payload by framing output as already-validated, though it never names that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement that this should be called to seed test data before validate_order_payload, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'synthetic' only weakly implies a testing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.