get_sold_compsThe most recent real eBay US sales for a search query (brand, model or pattern, a few specific words), with the count, median and quartiles. Use when the user wants to see what actually sold and for how much.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 3 to 6 specific words, brand and model first, like an eBay search. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are 'most recent,' limited to 'real eBay US sales,' and include median and quartiles, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect despite no output schema.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences contain no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives direct usage guidance.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich schema documentation, the description is complete. It explains the input style, the output metrics, and the intended use case, and there is no output schema that would require additional return-value detail.
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%, and the query property already provides detailed guidance ('3 to 6 specific words, brand and model first'). The description's mention of 'brand, model or pattern, a few specific words' adds a little color but does not substantially go beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: retrieving the most recent real eBay US sales for a search query, with count, median, and quartiles. It clearly communicates what the tool returns and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, such as list_on_ebay or price_item, by focusing on actual sold comps.
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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use when the user wants to see what actually sold and for how much.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.