quote_shippingReturn the shipping quote for one public listing and a two-letter country code. US ground shipping is included ($0 extra); other countries are unsupported. Does not reserve or buy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing item UUID or product URL slug, as returned by search_sets (id field or the last part of url). | |
| country | No | Two-letter ISO 3166-1 destination country code; defaults to US, the only supported destination. | US |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / country / descriptionAdded value: +"Two-letter ISO 3166-1 destination country code; defaults to US, the only supported destination."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Listing item UUID or product URL slug, as returned by search_sets (id field or the last part of url)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful business behavior beyond that: US-only support, included ground shipping, and the fact that no reservation or purchase occurs. It does not describe error behavior or return shape, so it is not fully transparent.
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?
The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence contributes either purpose, supported-country behavior, or a non-mutation clarification.
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 two-parameter read-only quote tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, supported destination, and non-purchase behavior. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about the returned quote format or currency, but the omission is minor.
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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates that the tool takes a public listing and a two-letter country code, without adding syntax, formatting, or default details beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the shipping quote for one public listing and a two-letter country code.' It is clearly distinct in domain from check_availability, read_policies, and search_sets, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those siblings.
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 gives clear usage constraints: US ground shipping is $0 extra, other countries are unsupported, and the call does not reserve or buy. It does not explicitly route the agent to or away from sibling tools, which keeps it below a 5.
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.