Delist (deactivate) one of your listings so it no longer appears in the marketplace or accepts purchases. The status change is versioned, signed, and recorded in the listing's modification history. Requires your seller api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional note recorded in the public audit trail. | |
| api_key | Yes | Your vm_live_ API key (must own the listing) | |
| listing_id | Yes | The listing to deactivate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the status change is versioned, signed, and recorded in the modification history, plus the api_key requirement. This goes beyond a simple 'deactivates listing' and provides useful behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable audit-trail context without waste. Every word contributes.
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 simple action with 3 params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, prerequisites, and side effects. It could optionally mention reversibility or impact on pending transactions, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description only reinforces that the api_key must be the seller's, adding little beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb (Delist/deactivate) and resource (listings), clearly stating the outcome: the listing no longer appears or accepts purchases. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_listing and listing_history.
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?
It clearly states the tool is for the user's own listings and requires a seller api_key, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_platform_stats and marketplace_stats overlap in the stats domain and could be confused. The rest are well-separated by buyer/seller/wallet roles.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (buy_data, get_wallet_balance) with noun-first patterns (marketplace_stats, seller_dashboard, listing_history). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable.
27 tools is above the heavy threshold and there are multiple near-duplicate stats tools and several informational/contact tools that could be consolidated. The scope is broad but the count feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full seller lifecycle (list, update, delist, dashboard), buyer lifecycle (browse, preview, buy, get receipt, rate), wallet management, and health-data-specific flows. Missing refund/dispute tools are a minor gap.
