Computes price statistics for n11.com search results: product count plus min, median, mean, and max prices in TRY on the first page.
Price statistics for a search query: product count, min / median / mean / max price in TRY across the first page of results. query: e.g. "iphone 15"; limit 1..24 (default 24 = whole first page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | relevance | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — statistics are computed only over the first page of results, so min/max are not catalog-wide — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, live-vs-cached data, or whether prices reflect discounts or list price.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then parameter hints — no filler. The fragment style ('query: e.g. ...; limit 1..24') is dense but readable; a small structure improvement would be to name the uncovered `sort` parameter in the same list.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and it is adequate for a simple 3-parameter read tool. The gaps are the undocumented `sort` parameter and the absence of any caveat about how the first-page-only scope limits the statistics' interpretation.
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 must compensate, but it only covers two of three parameters. The `sort` parameter is never mentioned, and no accepted sort values are given despite it having no enum; `query` and `limit` get light clarification (example string, 1..24 range, default meaning).
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?
States a specific verb and resource (price statistics for a search query) and enumerates exactly what is computed: count plus min/median/mean/max in TRY over the first page. That makes it clearly distinct in effect from n11_search and n11_product_detail, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied — you call this when you want aggregate pricing rather than a product list — and the limit note ('default 24 = whole first page') hints at a common operating mode. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools for the raw-listing case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.