Fetch full details for a single listing by its UUID. Returns the listing if active, sold, or expired. Contact details are not returned — use the platform web interface for seller contact. A currency_note field is included in the response; it explains that currency is omitted and where the market nominal currency reference can be found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing UUID (e.g. from search_listings results) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that contact details are excluded, that all listing statuses (active/sold/expired) return results, and preemptively explains the currency_note field. This is notable behavioral disclosure for a read-only fetch tool. Could have mentioned return format, but this is a fetch-by-id utility where behavior is fairly obvious.
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 compact — three sentences covering purpose, status scope, and the currency_note caveat. It's front-loaded with the verb+resource and each sentence earns its place. Slightly longer than necessary but every statement adds value, particularly the currency_note disclosure which prevents agent confusion.
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 single-parameter fetch tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It covers result conditions, an important exclusion (contact details), and preemptively explains a surprising field (currency_note). No output schema exists, so describing the currency_note field compensates partially for that gap. The description is adequate for agent selection and invocation.
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% (the single 'id' parameter is described as 'Listing UUID (e.g. from search_listings results)'). The description reinforces this by stating UUID usage but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation well.
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 verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('full details for a single listing'), and identifies it by 'UUID'. It distinguishes from siblings: search_listings is for searching, while this is a single-listing detail fetch. The marketing of scope (active/sold/expired) adds clarity.
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 specifies when to use it (fetching full details for a single listing by UUID), and implicitly distinguishes from search_listings (which returns lists/results). It clearly states contact details are NOT returned, directing users to the web interface instead — an explicit negative scope statement. No explicit naming of alternatives, but sibling differentiation is implied via the UUID-single-listing nature.
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 targets a clearly distinct resource or operation: listing search, listing detail, regions, categories, modules, platform overview, and subscription info. The descriptions also explicitly prevent confusion, such as noting that get_platform_overview is not a listings search result.
Tool names follow a readable snake_case verb-first pattern: get_ for detail/info tools, list_ for enumerations, and search_ for queries. The main inconsistency is get_regions returning a full list while list_categories and list_modules use the list_ prefix for the same kind of enumeration.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only marketplace discovery server. Each tool provides a necessary capability without redundancy, and the count stays comfortably in the ideal range.
For its stated read-only discovery purpose, the surface is complete: search active listings, fetch listing details, retrieve region and category taxonomies, and understand platform context, modules, and subscription capabilities. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations exist within the declared scope.
