Select an optimal offer across Digikala and SnappShop using explicit ordered filters like seller rating, warranty, and availability for explainable comparisons.
Select an offer using an explicit, ordered policy rather than a hidden score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priority | No | ||
| store_ids | Yes | ||
| seller_ids | No | ||
| product_ids | Yes | ||
| require_warranty | No | ||
| require_available | No | ||
| minimum_seller_rating | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions an 'explicit, ordered policy' but never discloses the policy itself, how 'priority' drives ordering, whether the operation is read-only, or what the result contains. For a 7-parameter selection tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but its content is abstract rather than informative. It is concise without being clarifying, so it earns only a middling score.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain behavior and parameters and does neither. The one-sentence description is inadequate for a selection tool with this many filtering and policy knobs.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Ordered policy' hints at the 'priority' parameter but never explains its accepted values or ordering semantics, and require_warranty, require_available, minimum_seller_rating, seller_ids and store_ids receive no clarification.
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 gestures at a verb ('Select an offer') with a mechanism ('explicit, ordered policy'), but never states the resource context — products filtered by store/seller — that the required parameters imply. It does draw a loose contrast with a score-based selector (find_best_price), but an agent cannot confidently tell what this tool returns for the given product_ids and store_ids.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the many siblings (find_best_price, compare_offers, compare_prices). The phrase 'rather than a hidden score' faintly nudges away from a score-based alternative, but no condition is stated for choosing this tool over the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.