product-barcode-api

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data, the paid-plan requirement, and per-call billing, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what authentication is required, or that the returned credentials are sensitive.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the monetization constraint.

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 parameterless endpoint with no output schema, the description gives the essential facts: what is returned, how access is granted, and the cost. Minor gaps remain around auth details and response format, but they are not critical for basic invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. No parameter explanation is needed, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description states a clear purpose: it returns the username and password for the MySQL database containing product information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch products, history, or market 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 intended use is implied: use this endpoint when you need database credentials. It also states a prerequisite (subscribing to the $100 plan) and cost, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination and metered billing, but does not explain permissions, side effects, rate limits, dependencies such as historyPrices requiring marketPrices, or return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by billing. There is no wasted text.

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 description covers the basic operation and billing context, but with five optional parameters and no output schema it does not explain return values or when the price-related options should be used. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the pagination and billing summary, not additional meaning for page, size, or the price-related parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it "Lists products" and adds the pagination scope. That is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_api_external_search or get_api_external_product_of_market.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of sibling tools such as search, last, or product_of_market. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions billing ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, or side effects. The description is not misleading but is insufficient for full behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and billing information without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is adequate for a simple retrieval operation, but it omits details about return values, error handling, or whether the market parameter is optional (though the schema notes it). It is not incomplete to the point of confusion, but could be more thorough given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (barcode and market), including that market must exist in the system. The tool description adds only the synonym 'relevant store' for the market parameter, which does not significantly enhance understanding. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving historical price information for a product at a specific store. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and a distinct resource ('historical price information'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle search or product listings.

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 the tool is used when historical price data is needed (e.g., 'relevant store' suggests providing a market), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search or marketList. It gives some context but lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Retrieves' and the zero-credit cost, which is useful. Yet it does not specify return format, ordering details beyond 'recently updated,' or any potential limitations, making it moderately transparent but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a brief billing note. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential facts: what it returns and its cost. It could elaborate on the output structure, but for a straightforward list retrieval, the current description is adequately complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. According to the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('20 most recently updated products') with a specific output scope ('along with their market prices'). This distinguishes it from siblings like getProducts or search by focusing on recency and the free billing aspect.

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 offers implied usage context: it is free and returns the latest products, so an agent would use it when these criteria are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the comparison to siblings like search or getProducts implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must convey the safety and behavior profile. It says 'Retrieves' and explicitly mentions billing at 0 credits, but it does not disclose caching, freshness, response shape, or any access requirements.

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 a single, direct sentence that communicates the purpose, scope, and billing cost without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description states what is returned, market names, and the billing details, which is sufficient for this low-complexity 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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 what the tool does: retrieves market names used in filters. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like product_of_market or search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'used in the filters' implies when this tool would be relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose cost behavior: metered billing with ~0.76 average credits and an extra credit for history. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and the shape of the returned 'details', so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and its key inputs front-loaded, followed by the optional-history and billing facts. Nothing is redundant, though the title's marketing phrasing ('Only the Relevant Market Price') adds no operational value.

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 four-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and cost but not the return contract beyond a vague 'details', nor prerequisites or failure modes. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the credit cost of 'history' and the no-credit 'isExist' flag. The description only restates the optional history behavior and adds nothing on barcode format or marketName expectations, 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 and resource: it returns the current price and product details keyed by barcode and store. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_api_external_history and get_api_external_marketList, though it never names or contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite a sibling (get_api_external_history) that plausibly overlaps with the optional history flag. The mention that history is 'optional' is a parameter note, not tool-selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the 1-10 result bound and the metered billing (~3.02 credits avg), which are not in the schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, failure/empty-result behavior, or how the per-parameter credit costs interact with the base call cost.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, result bounds, and billing with zero filler. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return cardinality (1-10) that the schema lacks, and the input schema is rich at 100% coverage. The main residual gap is the absence of annotations and any auth/error context, which leaves the safety and failure profile undescribed.

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 all four parameters including the credit costs for marketPrices/historyPrices/preferredMarkets are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics or the dependency (historyPrices requires marketPrices=true), so the 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 and resource ('Searches for products') plus the matching keys ('by barcode or name') and the result cardinality bound (1-10). This is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling getProducts, so an agent cannot tell the two apart without opening both schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: searching by name or barcode suggests a lookup scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as getProducts or product_of_market. An agent must infer routing from the sibling list alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'sends products to email address' but the schema reveals the email parameter is optional and that the file also returns in the API response when no email is given. This is misleading—the description implies email is mandatory. It also omits behavioral traits like the response format (Excel file) and any authentication requirements beyond the plan restriction.

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 concise, with two sentences front-loading the core purpose. It includes relevant business constraints (plan and billing) without unnecessary fluff. However, the emphasis on email might mislead the agent, and the structure could better separate the optional email behavior.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions sending to email, omitting that the Excel file is also returned in the response when no email is specified. It doesn't address prerequisites like authentication, and the optionality of email is not conveyed. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior and call this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides exhaustive descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers, so it meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for anything missing.

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 tool sends products in Excel format to an email address, which distinguishes it from siblings like getProducts (which likely returns raw JSON). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the API also returns the file in the response body, only focusing on email delivery. The plan restriction adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from similar product-fetching tools.

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 mentions the $350/month plan requirement and per-call billing, which are constraints but not usage guidance. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like getProducts or search, nor does it clarify that email is optional. No context is given about typical scenarios (e.g., bulk export vs. single product lookup).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.