Server has 5 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps prevent production use. All tools have descriptions (positive), but most are in German and lack LLM-optimized structure. Schemas are present but incomplete: parameters lack type constraints (enums, ranges), output schemas are undocumented, and error handling is absent. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (good), but parameter descriptions are sparse. No security controls visible (credentials, permissions, audit trails). Composition is reasonable (single responsibility per tool), but chaining support is weak, tools don't consistently return IDs needed by downstream calls.

• Document output schema for each tool. Example for create_purchase_intent: 'Returns {id: string, status: string, item: string, quantity: int, created_at: ISO8601}'. This enables LLMs to chain calls and extract needed fields.
• Convert status/currency/condition parameters to enums in schema. Replace 'Optional, neuer Status setzen' with formal enum: ['intent', 'comparing', 'ordered', 'shipped', 'delivered', 'cancelled']. Prevents hallucinated values.
• Add range constraints to numeric parameters. budget_max: {type: number, minimum: 0, maximum: 1000000}, quantity: {type: integer, minimum: 1, maximum: 10000}. Prevents absurd inputs.
• Translate descriptions to English and expand with WHEN/WHY context. E.g., 'Call compare_offers after create_purchase_intent to evaluate merchant options. Returns ranked list by total cost (price + shipping). Use track_purchase to monitor selected offer status.'
• Implement error handling with recovery guidance. Return {error: 'Purchase not found', suggestion: 'Call list_purchases() to find valid IDs', retryable: false} instead of bare exceptions.