Find Amazon market opportunities by low competition, high demand, poor ratings, or price gaps, filtered by category, revenue, and result limit.
Find market opportunities based on various criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Type of opportunity to find | low_competition |
| limit | No | Number of opportunities | |
| category | No | Category to search within | |
| minRevenue | No | Minimum market revenue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb 'Find' implying a read operation. It says nothing about return format, pagination, permissions, or rate limits.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and avoids bloat, but the phrase 'based on various criteria' is vague filler that does not earn its place. It is concise yet under-specified.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a generic one-line description, an agent cannot tell what an 'opportunity' result contains or how to interpret it. The fully documented schema covers parameters, but the description is inadequate for a tool with four filtering dimensions.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the description adds no meaning beyond 'various criteria' and does not name or explain the filters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Find') and resource ('market opportunities'), but 'based on various criteria' is vague and gives no clue how this differs from siblings like smartscout_market_analysis or smartscout_competitor_analysis. It is a minimum-viable statement of purpose, not a precise one.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.