get_productFetch a single product by slug. Returns the same payload as /[locale]/products/[slug] — B2B trade fields (MOQ, lead time, Incoterms, HS code, packaging) + media gallery + manufacturer reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug (per-locale or base). | |
| locale | No | Locale for the returned translation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by disclosing that this is a read-only fetch and by detailing the return payload: B2B trade fields, media gallery, and manufacturer reference. It does not cover edge cases like not-found behavior, but for a simple getter this is strong transparency.
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?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the payload specifics and endpoint equivalence into the remainder. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.
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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the route, the parameter-driven localization behavior, and the key payload sections. It could add error/not-found behavior or clarify the locale's effect on slug resolution, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents both slug and locale. The description adds detail about the returned payload but not about parameter semantics themselves, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single product by slug.' It also enumerates the exact payload contents (B2B trade fields, media gallery, manufacturer reference), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling search_products, which presumably returns lists.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a product slug and need the full details of a single product. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_products for cases where the slug is unknown, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.
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 maps to a distinct resource and action: product/manufacturer retrieval, catalog search, category listing, HS classification, dual-use screening, sanctions screening, and partnership inquiry. The compliance checks are related but clearly separated by HS-code vs. name-based screening, so an agent is unlikely to pick the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern: check_, get_, list_, search_, lookup_. partnership_inquiry is the only clear deviation, using a noun phrase instead of a verb-led name, but the overall convention is still easy to infer.
Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a public B2B trade and compliance server. Each tool covers a distinct step in the catalog-discovery or pre-flight workflow, with no redundant or decorative entries.
The core workflows are covered: category browsing, product search, manufacturer retrieval, HS classification, dual-use and sanctions screening, and partnership outreach. A minor gap is the lack of direct manufacturer text/country search, which is explicitly deferred to separate Wave 3b auth tools; agents can still discover manufacturers indirectly through product search.