Re-check whether specific impressions are still purchasable, immediately before presenting them to a buyer or attempting a purchase. Each work here is unique or from a small edition, so an impression can sell between search and checkout. ALWAYS call this before offering a specific impression — offering a sold original is worse than offering nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_ids | Yes | listing_id values from get_artwork. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that availability is transient, that impressions can sell between search and checkout, and that calling this check prevents offering sold originals. It does not describe the exact return shape or error behavior, but the core read-only re-check behavior is clearly conveyed.
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?
Three sentences with no padding: purpose and timing are front-loaded, the reason is given, and the actionable directive closes the description. Every sentence earns its place.
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 definition fully covers when and why to call the tool, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema, the description could briefly clarify what the response indicates for each listing, e.g., whether it returns per-listing availability or throws on sold impressions.
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 100%, giving the baseline of 3. The schema already documents listing_ids and even ties it to get_artwork; the description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the clear schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Re-check whether specific impressions are still purchasable.' This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings get_artwork and search_artworks, which handle retrieval/discovery rather than post-search availability confirmation.
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 gives explicit timing: 'immediately before presenting them to a buyer or attempting a purchase,' plus a strong ALWAYS directive before offering an impression. It explains the market context (unique/small editions can sell between search and checkout), though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name 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 targets a distinct stage: search_artworks discovers works, get_artwork provides full detail including impressions, and check_availability verifies current purchasability. There is no functional overlap between them.
All three tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_artworks, get_artwork, check_availability. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but each one earns its place: search is needed for discovery, get for detail, and check_availability for the critical pre-purchase verification. The scope is tight and well-defined.
The set covers the essential discovery-to-detail-to-availability workflow with no dead ends for the stated pre-purchase purpose. Minor gaps like an explicit list-all endpoint or purchase integration exist, but these appear intentionally outside the server's scope.