A provider's products and sources, or with product, that product's plans, rate
tables, limits, capabilities, price history and the official source of each fact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | Product slug for full plans and rates, e.g. "zyte-api" | |
| provider | Yes | Provider slug, e.g. "zyte" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the type of information returned and even notes the official source of each fact, which is useful. But it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limiting, pagination, or error conditions.
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 compact and contains no filler, with the primary subject and conditional behavior packed into one sentence. It is slightly awkward and lacks a strong verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets', but it is efficient and readable.
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 an output schema available and both parameters documented, the description does not need to restate return shapes. Still, it leaves out practical context such as how to discover provider slugs, whether product slugs must belong to the provider, and how this tool fits with the sibling tools.
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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying that supplying `product` unlocks plans, rates, limits, capabilities, and price history, but it does not provide additional format, constraints, or validation details.
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 conditional purpose: fetch a provider's products and sources, or when a product slug is given, that product's plans, rates, limits, and related details. It is distinct from search_providers because it is a details/get operation rather than a search. It loses a point for being a fragment with no explicit verb and no mention of how it relates to sibling detail 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 implies that providing the optional `product` parameter yields fuller product-level details, which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_providers, compare_products, estimate_cost, or get_recent_changes, and no hint that search_providers should be used first to find the provider slug.
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.