Fetch a marketplace listing by id: title, description, per-license pricing, terms, and sales totals. There is no public directory — you must know the listing UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Fetch' and specifies the exact fields returned. It also adds the operational constraint about UUID requirements. However, it doesn't describe error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects, though these are less critical for a simple get operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and data fields; the second adds a crucial constraint. No filler or repetition.
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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it fetches, the data it returns, and the requirement of a known UUID. It doesn't need to detail the output schema since that exists separately. Minor omission is not specifying access scope, but overall it's sufficient.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that listing_id is a UUID and must be known, giving the parameter clear meaning beyond the bare string type. The description also implies the parameter is required through context.
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: 'Fetch a marketplace listing by id' and enumerates the returned data (title, description, pricing, terms, sales totals). This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_listings, which lists multiple listings, and other verification 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?
It explicitly states a key usage constraint: 'There is no public directory — you must know the listing UUID.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool (when you have a UUID) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.
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 action and resource: uploads, account usage, listings, verifications, sharing, and the two verification methods are clearly differentiated by input type (single image vs RAW+JPEG). The get_verification and get_verification_share pair is unambiguous due to specific descriptions.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (create, get, list, share, unshare, verify), making the set predictable and consistent. Even longer names like verify_content_credentials follow the same verb-first convention.
With 11 tools, the server covers uploads, verification, results retrieval, sharing, account usage, and marketplace listing retrieval without redundancy. This is a well-scoped count for the feature set.
The verification lifecycle is well covered: create (two methods), upload, get, list, share/unshare, and usage check. The only notable gap is that marketplace listing management is read-only (no create/update/delete), but that's tangential to the core verification purpose.
