Get the full profile for a specific retailer: address, contact details, opening hours, categories, subscription plan, TÜV certification, customer rating and seal_implemented (whether the authorized.by seal is live on their shop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Retailer numeric ID or alias. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The absence of annotations places burden on description, which is insufficient.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output fields. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability, but overall concise.
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 no output schema, the description lists many output fields (address, hours, categories, etc.) and explains 'seal_implemented'. It covers the main profile aspects but omits edge cases like missing retailer or response structure.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'Retailer numeric ID or alias', which aligns with the schema description but does not add further meaning (e.g., format constraints or examples).
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 tool retrieves the full profile for a specific retailer and lists the included fields (address, contact details, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_retailers (plural) and get_brand_retailers.
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 implies use for a single retailer but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_retailers or get_brand_retailers. No prerequisites or error handling mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching individual brands/retailers, listing/searching them, and retrieving their cross-relationships. There is no functional overlap.
All tools follow a strict 'get_<entity>_<optional_relation>' pattern in snake_case, providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With 6 tools covering both entities (brands and retailers) and their bidirectional relationships, the count is well-scoped for a read-focused API.
The tool set covers all essential read operations: individual lookups, listing/search, and relationship queries for both brands and retailers, leaving no obvious gaps.
