Search Taobao, JD, and Pinduoduo concurrently for a product, then compare prices after coupons and sort globally from low to high to identify the best deal.
多平台比价 — 并发搜索 + 按券后价全局升序排序。
Args:
keyword: 搜索关键词
page_size: 每平台取前 N 个结果
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 adds valuable operational details beyond the schema: the tool searches platforms concurrently and globally sorts results by coupon-adjusted price in ascending order. This goes beyond a generic 'compare prices' statement, though it does not mention potential latency or platform coverage.
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 extremely compact: one leading sentence summarizes the tool's core behavior and sorting guarantee, followed by two concise parameter explanations. Every sentence carries necessary information, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's operational behavior, sort order, and parameter semantics sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly. It falls short only in not providing explicit routing guidance against sibling tools.
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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining keyword as the search term and page_size as the number of top results taken per platform. This adds functional meaning that the raw schema lacks, making parameter intent unambiguous.
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 a specific function: compare prices across multiple platforms, with concurrent search and global ascending sorting by coupon-adjusted price. This distinguishes it from generic search or detail tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'parse_and_compare'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for multi-platform price comparison and sorting by final price after coupons, which conveys a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_products or parse_and_compare, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.