Retrieve frequently ordered Amazon Now items from past order history, sorted by purchase frequency, and optionally filter by product title keywords.
Get the user's proven items from past Amazon Now orders: asin, title, timesOrdered, lastOrdered. Sorted by how often they were bought.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional words to filter titles, e.g. "milk curd paneer". Omit to get everything. |
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 carries the full disclosure burden and does add useful behavior: the exact returned fields and the frequency-based sort order. It omits result-count limits, whether the history is cached/stale, and the existence of now_refresh_history as the way to update it, which is material for a history-reading tool.
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 dense sentences with zero filler; the resource and return fields are front-loaded and the sort behavior follows immediately.
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?
For a single optional-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how it is ordered, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the relationship to now_refresh_history and any cap on the number of returned items.
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?
One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains the query filter with an example. The description adds nothing about the query parameter, such as matching behavior across titles or how it interacts with the frequency sort.
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 (Get) and a clearly bounded resource (the user's previously ordered items from Amazon Now history), and enumerates the returned fields plus sort order, which separates it from the catalog-oriented now_search. It never names or contrasts a sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 only usage cue is inside the schema ('Omit to get everything'), and the sort order hints this is for reordering frequently-bought staples. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus now_search or now_refresh_history, and no statement about whether history must be refreshed first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.