brand_market_basketWhat customers buy together with each ASIN (bought-with pairs and combination shares).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asin | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| weeks | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| period | No | ||
| seller_connection_id | No | Which seller connection (see account_sellers). Optional when the token has exactly one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that results contain 'bought-with pairs and combination shares,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, how weeks/period affect results, or whether output is aggregated across sellers.
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?
One sentence with no filler. The core behavior and output type are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.
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?
With six parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: whether asin is required, what weeks or period mean, how limit/offset paginate, and what the returned data actually looks like. An agent could discover the tool but cannot confidently configure a correct call.
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 only 17% (only seller_connection_id has a description), so the description needed to compensate by explaining asin, limit, weeks, offset, and period. It only indirectly clarifies asin; the other parameters remain semantically undefined and must be guessed.
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 clear subject ('what customers buy together') and resource ('each ASIN'), and specifies the output concept ('bought-with pairs and combination shares'). It does not explicitly contrast sibling brand_* tools, but the market-basket idea is distinct enough for basic identification.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like brand_repeat_purchase, brand_search_catalog, brand_sqp, or brand_top_search_terms. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.