lemonade-bench

by mxmarchal

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

lemonade_set_advertising

Set the next day's advertising budget in whole-dollar increments to manage marketing spend and drive customer demand.

Instructions

Set the advertising budget for the next day, in whole-dollar increments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "advertising_cents": "<advertising_cents>"
    },
    "name": "lemonade_set_advertising"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`advertising_cents`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the setting action and the day scope but omits keys like whether the budget overwrites an existing value, any limits beyond the schema, or consequences. The 'whole-dollar increments' hint helps but is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits parameter unit and default/override behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete without annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the budget is in whole-dollar increments, which relates to the multipleOf 100 constraint, but it does not explicitly state the unit is cents (advertising_cents) nor the allowed range. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('advertising budget') with a temporal scope ('for the next day'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_price or set_recipe.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for the next day' implies when to use it, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives is provided. It is not misleading, just lacks explicit exclusion or context.

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