Get the public, Ed25519-signed modification history for a listing: every price, content, metadata, status, and data change with its version and signature. Data changes appear as fingerprints only — never the raw content. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses public access, no API key requirement, Ed25519 signing, version/signature inclusion, and that raw content is never exposed (fingerprints only). This is rich, non-obvious behavior.
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 concise sentences front-load the action and provide essential details in a structured way without any waste.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete, describing the output elements and access requirements. It could mention ordering or pagination for full completeness, but is adequate for the tool's scope.
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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the listing_id parameter. However, the single parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool name and description context, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('modification history for a listing'), and enumerates the types of changes tracked. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the signed, fingerprint-only nature of data changes.
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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (to retrieve a listing's public modification history) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like preview_listing or get_purchase.
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.
