Full detail on one product by catalog id: price (USD + USDC atomic), category, description, bundle contents, cover, and — for buyable products — a live payment block fetched from the real x402 402 challenge (network, USDC contract, amount, pay-to wallet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Catalog product id (see search_products or list_categories). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that for buyable products, it fetches a live payment block from a real x402 challenge, indicating a real-time network call. Does not mention errors or rate limits, but is generally transparent.
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 paragraph with no wasted words, but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) and uses run-on punctuation. It efficiently conveys key details.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned data (price, category, description, bundle, cover, live payment block) and conditions (buyable products). No gaps.
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% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Catalog product id (see search_products or list_categories).' The description only adds that it is a 'catalog id', providing minimal extra meaning beyond 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 specifically states 'Full detail on one product by catalog id' and enumerates returned fields (price, category, description, bundle contents, cover, live payment block). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_products (list) and list_categories.
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 implicitly directs use by catalog id from sibling tools but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It mentions 'for buyable products' but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get_product for details, how_to_buy for payment steps, list_categories for categories, search_products for searching. No overlaps.
Three tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_product, list_categories, search_products), but how_to_buy is a phrase, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 4 tools covering search, detail, categories, and buying instructions, the count is well-scoped for a catalog server.
Core operations are covered: search, get, list categories, and buy instructions. Missing a tool to list all products, but search likely handles that with empty query.