List the marketplace listings owned by your account (with pricing and sales totals).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| 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 full burden. It discloses the account scope and the inclusion of pricing and sales totals in results. The verb 'list' clearly signals a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly mention pagination or rate limits. This is reasonable behavioral context for a simple listing tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and scope directly. No extraneous words 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?
The tool is low-complexity with an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and scope. It lacks explicit pagination guidance, but the schema provides defaults, making it sufficient for most use cases.
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 does not mention limit or offset. The agent gets no guidance about pagination, ordering, or how these parameters affect results beyond their default values in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 'List the marketplace listings owned by your account' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (marketplace listings) with a clear scope (owned by your account), distinguishing it from siblings like get_listing (single listing) and list_verifications (different resource). It also adds return value context (with pricing and sales totals).
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 usage for retrieving the user's own listings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_listing or list_verifications, nor does it mention exclusions. The scope is clear, but the guidance is only implied.
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 resource/action: verification creation (RAW+JPEG vs single-image), retrieval/listing, sharing, PSD export, upload helper, quota, tags, and marketplace listings are clearly separated. The closest pair — verify_photo and verify_content_credentials — is disambiguated by input type and forensic scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, request_, share_, unshare_, verify_. Single-item getters use get_, collection getters use list_, and the verification verbs are uniform.
14 tools is well within the well-scoped range and each maps to a distinct operation. The count covers core verification plus sharing, PSD export, uploads, quota, tags, and marketplace without feeling padded.
The core verification lifecycle is complete: upload, verify, retrieve, list, check quota, share/unshare, and export PSD. Minor gaps exist — tag assignment is only done via web app/API, PSD download happens outside MCP, and there are no delete/listing-management tools — but they do not block the primary workflow.
