Fetch all existing offers for the company. Use this to list and review offers.
Returns all offers for the company
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "fiken_list_offers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; it does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or return format. The phrase 'all offers' is misleading given the pagination parameters.
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 a single sentence and front-loaded, but it omits important details like pagination and the specific resource type. It is concise but incomplete.
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 list tool with optional pagination and no output schema, the description lacks information about return format, default pagination, and how it relates to offer drafts. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (page, pageSize) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their purpose or effect. The phrase 'all offers' contradicts the pagination parameters, causing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all offers for the company, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fiken_list_offer_drafts or mention pagination, which is implied by the parameters.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as fiken_get_offer or fiken_list_offer_drafts, no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.