Full dataset audit of a listing ($0.04 after the one-time free trial, or pass). Args: listing, siblings (or listing_url).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "audit_listing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing | No | ||
| siblings | No | ||
| listing_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little beyond a cost ($0.04) and the existence of a free trial. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what it mutates or returns, or what permissions are needed for a 'full dataset audit'.
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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose before the args, with little waste. The pricing interjection '($0.04 after the one-time free trial, or pass)' is awkwardly placed but the overall structure is efficient.
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 nested object parameter, zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the meaning of the listing object, the return shape, and the selection criteria versus siblings.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameter names and implies siblings is an alternative to listing_url ('or'), which adds some value, but the nested 'listing' object is entirely undocumented and the rest largely repeats schema field names.
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?
States a verb (audit) and resource (listing) with scope (full dataset), which is more than a tautology. However, 'audit' is never elaborated – what the audit checks or produces is left to inference, and no sibling (query_verdict, verify_verdict) is named for differentiation.
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 no when-to-use / when-not guidance and never references the sibling tools that an agent would need to choose between. The phrase 'or pass' is cryptic and gives no actionable condition for selecting this tool.
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.