Get current price, availability, and (when permitted) stock for a SKU. KEYED tool — requires a valid API key. Tier pricing and lead time are placeholders until the Acumatica sync ships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | The exact product SKU. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and placeholder status, but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or potential impacts of usage. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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: the first clearly states purpose and scope, the second adds critical context (API key requirement and placeholder data). No extraneous words.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the returned information (price, availability, stock) and caveats (placeholders, restrictions). It is sufficiently complete for a basic read operation.
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?
The single parameter (sku) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline.
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 'Get' and the resources 'price, availability, and (when permitted) stock' for a specific SKU. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_product_details (general product info) and request_quote (quote generation).
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?
It specifies that the tool requires a valid API key ('KEYED tool') and notes that data is placeholder until Acumatica sync. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this vs alternatives.
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 serves a distinct purpose: search vs details vs price/lead time vs quote request. No overlap in functionality.
All names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores. Clear and predictable: search_products, get_product_details, get_price_and_lead_time, request_quote.
Four tools is well-scoped for a catalog server covering discovery, details, pricing, and quoting. No excess or deficiency.
Covers the full product inquiry and quoting workflow. Minor gap: no tool to list products without a search query, but search is robust enough to handle browsing.