add_inventory_valuationAppend immutable valuation observation. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| currency | No | ||
| request_id | No | Client idempotency key (retries return original result). | |
| inventory_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | Alias for request_id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| valuation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for request_id.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Client idempotency key (retries return original result).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation appends an immutable observation, costs $0.10, and requires an API key. Annotations already indicate it is a write operation, but the description usefully discloses immutability and cost.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. The parenthetical cost and API key requirement earn their place without adding fluff. 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?
For a simple append operation, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: immutability, cost, and authentication. However, it is incomplete as a standalone guide because it omits usage context and leaves the core parameters (value, currency, inventory_id) semantically under-specified despite low schema coverage.
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 only 40%, and the description does not explain value, currency, or inventory_id. The phrase 'valuation observation' hints at the meaning of value, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, especially for required fields like inventory_id and the optional currency format.
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 the specific verb 'Append' and the resource 'valuation observation', making the core operation clear. The word 'immutable' also implicitly distinguishes it from update/delete tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what it is not.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_inventory_valuations, update_inventory_item, or add_inventory_item. It mentions API key and cost, which are prerequisites, but gives no context about when this tool is the right choice or when an alternative should be used.
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.