product-barcode-api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns sensitive MySQL credentials, but it does not mention failure modes, authorization behavior, or security considerations for handling the returned password.

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 three short sentences and every sentence earns its place: what is returned, which database it accesses, subscription requirement, and billing cost. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, low-complexity tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the returned values, the data domain, and the access/billing context. It is slightly limited by the lack of usage-vs-alternative context and no error or negative-case information.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no hidden input semantic gap. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully describes the input surface and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter detail.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'returns the username and password for accessing the MySQL database containing product information.' It uses a specific verb, identifies the exact resource, and is clearly distinct from the sibling product-data 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 gives no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternatives. It only mentions the $350 plan subscription and per-call billing, which is a prerequisite rather than an actionable usage guideline.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose billing behavior ('Billing per call: Credits: metered (~102.47 avg)'), which is a useful addition beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as response format, rate limiting, or error handling, and the schema descriptions—though detailed—are not part of the top-level description. The billing mention prevents a lower score, but the transparency is still somewhat shallow.

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 with only two sentences: the first states the function, the second provides billing context. There is zero fluff, and the most critical information (purpose and cost) is front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic usage but leaves some gaps. The billing and pagination are covered, and the schema descriptions fill in parameter details (credit costs, dependencies). However, there is no mention of response structure, pagination limits beyond parameter defaults, or failure modes. For a moderately complex tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, though the schema descriptions themselves extensively document credit costs, dependencies (e.g., historyPrices requires marketPrices=true), and defaults. The description's general note about metered credits is a mild addition, but it doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Lists' and resource 'products' and adds 'pagination' to indicate a paged listing operation. This is clear and distinctive enough given the tool name, though it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'search' or 'last'. It's not just a tautology and provides a solid, if minimal, purpose statement.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. The only contextual hint is 'using pagination,' which implies a use case for paginated listing, but there is no explicit comparison with sibling tools like get_api_external_search or get_api_external_last. This lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance typical of higher scores.

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?

The description discloses billing per call (credits metered ~0.08 avg) and notes that including price history consumes an additional credit. With no annotations, this provides some behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving notable gaps in 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 two sentences, immediately stating the core function and adding billing information without redundancy. It is front-loaded, clear, and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete in some respects. It does not describe the return format in detail ('current price and details' is vague), nor does it mention the isExist parameter's specific behavior, though that is covered in the schema. For a simple read tool, it covers essentials but leaves room for improvement.

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%, with all four parameters (barcode, marketName, history, isExist) having descriptions. The tool-level description adds minimal value: it mentions barcode and store name, and optional history, but these are already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'It returns the current price and details of the product based on the specified barcode and store name.' This specifies a verb (returns), a resource (current price and details), and inputs. The title 'Retrieves Only the Relevant Market Price' further distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle broader product searches or history.

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 implied: the tool is for getting price/details for a specific barcode and store, with optional history. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings like get_api_external_history or get_api_external_getProducts, nor does it state any exclusions or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds two useful facts: result count limits (min 1, max 10) and billing details (metered credits). However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a search tool, it doesn't describe what happens on empty results or error conditions. It adds some value but is incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose, result constraints, and billing. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 rich input schema (full parameter descriptions) and no output schema, the description serves as a high-level overview. It covers the main search capability and billing, which are the most critical operational aspects. The min/max result count is a useful constraint. While it doesn't elaborate on return structure or parameter dependencies, those are already documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including examples and semantics for marketPrices, historyPrices, and preferredMarkets. The tool's own description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat what the schema already documents.

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: searching for products by barcode or name. It also specifies the return count range (1-10), which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely serve different query patterns (e.g., getProducts might fetch by ID, history might fetch historical data). The verb 'Searches' is precise and directly tied to the tool's purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, nor does it state any preconditions or restrictions. The only usage hint is implicit from the description itself (search by name/barcode), but no comparative direction is given.

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