Product recall lookup: for a product, brand, or category, returns recall information including the recall date, hazard description, remedy, and regulatory authority (such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission). For product safety checks, marketplace compliance, and consumer protection. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Product name, brand, or category to check for recalls |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / lookup / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "Costco"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the response fields returned and the paid cost model ('$0.25 USDC via x402'), which is operationally important. It does not say whether multiple recalls are returned or how results are paged.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, followed by use cases and cost. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing cost. The only gap is result cardinality/pagination behavior, which is minor for a lookup tool.
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% and the single 'lookup' parameter already documents 'Product name, brand, or category to check for recalls' with an example. The description's 'for a product, brand, or category' merely repeats that, adding no new format or syntax guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Product recall lookup') and immediately defines its inputs (product, brand, or category) and outputs (recall date, hazard, remedy, regulatory authority). No sibling tool in the list covers recalls, and the domain is explicitly named, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
Gives concrete use cases ('product safety checks, marketplace compliance, and consumer protection') that tell the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. versus interzoid_product_match for matching rather than recall data), so it is clear but not complete.
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.