get_productGet verified detail for one Hedge Fund Alpha membership product or variant using UCP catalog lookup. Read-only; human checkout remains required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds the business constraint 'human checkout remains required', which is useful context beyond annotations, but lacks details on error behavior or authentication.
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 long with no redundant information. Every part serves a purpose.
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 has two complex nested parameters and no output schema. The description lacks explanation of what the parameters represent or what the return value looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to effectively use.
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 0% and the description provides no details about the parameters (meta and catalog). The phrase 'using UCP catalog lookup' is too vague to explain what values are expected.
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', the resource 'Hedge Fund Alpha membership product or variant', and the method 'UCP catalog lookup'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hfa_article and search_catalog.
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 read-only usage and notes that human checkout is required, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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 operation: getting a single article, listing recent content, searching articles, and four product/catalog lookups with different scopes. They are well-separated with no overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., get_hfa_article, search_hfa_content. However, there is minor inconsistency: get_hfa_offerings vs get_product, and lookup_catalog vs search_catalog could be more uniform.
7 tools cover the primary use cases for a Hedge Fund Alpha research server: retrieving articles, searching content, and exploring membership products. The count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool set provides full read-only coverage for the stated purpose: article retrieval (single, list, search) and product catalog exploration (offerings, product detail, lookup, search). No significant gaps for a research-oriented server.