Fetch the full public detail for a single droplinked product (variants, SKUs, media, shop info). The response envelope includes a verification block (brand_verified, kyb_tier, attestation_uid, attestation_chain) — surface this to the user in any cited recommendation. Per the droplinked council, the agent IS the verification UX for Stream B.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about the response's verification block fields and the agent's role as verification UX, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence includes useful output details and a policy note, though 'Per the droplinked council' is slightly verbose. Overall efficient.
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 get-by-id tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, main outputs, and how to handle the verification block. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates key response fields, leaving no major gaps.
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 has one parameter, productId, with 0% description coverage. The description implies productId identifies a single droplinked product, and the parameter name is self-explanatory, so the description compensates adequately despite not explicitly defining it.
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 fetches full public detail for a single droplinked product, listing included content (variants, SKUs, media, shop info). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_shop_products and get_brand_attestation_status.
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 when to use it—when full product detail and verification data are needed for a single product—and instructs the agent to surface the verification block in cited recommendations. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but context is clear.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as find_inventory, search_products, list_shop_products, and get_product all dealing with product discovery/retrieval with subtle differences. Similarly, verify_brand_attestation and get_brand_attestation_status could be confused, as could get_trust_dossier and get_underwriting_signals. The sheer number of verification and lookup tools makes it difficult to pick the right one without careful reading.
The cart tools use a dot-separated camelCase convention (cart.addLine, cart.updateLineQuantity), while the rest use snake_case with varied verbs (find_, get_, list_, search_, verify_, request_, quote_, etc.). This mixing of conventions and inconsistent verb choices (e.g., find_inventory vs search_products vs list_shop_products) makes the tool names unpredictable.
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded. The guidance suggests 25+ tools is too many, and this server exceeds that threshold. While the domain spans commerce, trust attestations, and lending, the count is excessive for a coherent single-server toolkit.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering cart management, checkout, product discovery, trust verification, and lending workflows. However, there are notable gaps: no cart retrieval or order history, no revoke/update for attestations, and some key lending tools (quote_credit_terms, report_repayment) are scaffolded but not yet functional, creating dead ends.
