gold_etsy_profit_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool pulls live Etsy price/shipping data, applies a concrete fee schedule (6.5% transaction, $0.20 listing, payment fees), and combines that with user-provided COGS/ad cost. It also signals authentication/paywall constraints ('BYOK', 'PAID ONLY PRO'), which is useful context, though it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the core calculation with arrow notation that makes the data flow readable. However, 'POWER' is marketing filler and 'BYOK' is an unexplained acronym, which adds noise without clarity. It earns a middle score because it is concise but not fully clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, so the description should provide more invocation detail. It does not enumerate or define all parameters, does not describe the output payload shape beyond 'margin % and the price you NEED', and does not explain how the payment fee or shipping inputs are resolved. An agent would likely need extra context or sensible defaults to call it correctly.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It loosely documents cogs ('COGS'), ad_spend_per_sale ('ad cost'), shipping_cost_you_pay ('shipping'), and target_margin_pct ('margin % and the price you NEED'). But listing_id is only implied by 'per listing', and target_margin_pct is not clearly separated from the output margin, leaving the parameter mapping imprecise for an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a per-listing profit calculator that fetches price/shipping from Etsy, applies fees and costs, and returns margin plus the required price. This function is distinct from sibling tools such as gold_etsy_get_listing or gold_etsy_update_listing, which read or modify listings rather than compute financials. The main reason it is not a 5 is that the core verb is implied by 'calculator' and the formula rather than explicitly stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use case is implied: call this tool when you need a listing's real net profit, target price, or margin. However, the description never states this explicitly, names alternatives, or says when not to use it. 'BYOK' and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29' are access prerequisites, not selection guidance.

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