Search products across Taobao, JD, and Pinduoduo by keyword, with platform filters and pagination to compare prices and find deals.
跨平台商品搜索 (并发请求)。
Args:
keyword: 搜索关键词
platform: 平台筛选 (all / taobao / jd / pdd)
page: 页码
page_size: 每页数量
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| keyword | Yes | ||
| platform | No | all | |
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful behavioral cue ('并发请求', meaning concurrent requests) and clarifies cross-platform scope, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side-effect freedom, rate limits, or failure modes. Search semantics imply safety, yet the disclosure is not complete.
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-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean annotated parameter list. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 schema provides defaults and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential inputs and behavior sufficiently. It explains all parameters and adds the concurrency note, though richer guidance around pagination conventions or when the result set spans multiple platforms would have rounded it out.
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%, and the description compensates by explaining every parameter: keyword, platform (with allowed values all/taobao/jd/pdd), page, and page_size. It adds value beyond the bare property names, especially for platform options which the schema does not enumerate.
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 states a clear verb and resource: '跨平台商品搜索' (cross-platform product search), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_product_detail, compare_prices, and get_coupons. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product_detail or compare_prices. It implies a broad searching use case but does not state exclusions, preferred context, or scenarios where a sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.