Full granularity 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, yet it only discloses pricing and the one-time free-trial mechanic. It says nothing about whether the audit is read-only or mutating, what permissions it needs, how expensive/slow it is, or what happens on repeated calls.
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?
It is short and front-loads the audit purpose, but the terseness comes at the cost of clarity rather than efficiency: the pricing aside consumes space that could have described behavior, and the 'Args:' fragment is cryptic.
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 schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent knows the price but not what a 'full granularity audit' returns or how to construct the 'listing' payload.
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% for three parameters, including a nested 'listing' object, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It does add one real insight the schema lacks — that 'siblings' and 'listing_url' are alternatives — but it gives no shape for the 'listing' object or the sibling entries.
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?
It names an action ('audit') and a resource ('a listing'), but 'full granularity' never says what is actually being audited or what the output covers. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling tools query_verdict and verify_verdict, so an agent cannot tell which audit-like tool to pick.
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 only conditional content is billing ('$0.04 after the one-time free trial, or pass'), which is cost information rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this over query_verdict or verify_verdict, nor any prerequisite for calling it.
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.