get_brokerGet full details for a single broker (agent) by their profile slug. Call this when the user asks for more information about a specific broker. Use the slug from search_brokers results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond that, such as error handling or return format, but does not contradict annotations.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what, when, and where the input comes from. It does not detail the return structure, but with no output schema or complexity, this is a minor gap.
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 schema only provides 'slug' with minLength 1, but the description explains it is a 'profile slug' and directs the agent to use the slug from search_brokers results. This is meaningful compensation given 0% schema description coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get full details for a single broker') and identifies the resource (broker/agent) and key parameter (profile slug). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_brokers by specifying 'single' and 'by profile slug'.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks for more information about a specific broker,' providing clear timing. It also gives an integration hint to use the slug from search_brokers results, but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: brokers vs businesses, search vs get vs contact, and supporting list tools for categories and languages. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (contact_broker, get_business, search_brokers, list_languages). The only deviation is who_am_i, which is a common idiom for identity checks but does not follow the same pattern, making it a minor inconsistency.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a business marketplace. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the search-detail-contact workflow, and there are no redundant or unnecessary tools.
The toolkit covers the full user journey: discovering categories/languages, searching for brokers/businesses, viewing details, and contacting them. It also includes authentication verification. No obvious gaps or dead ends prevent successful completion of typical tasks.