listing_describeWhat a listing on Wen Receipts is, what it costs, how it is paid, who publishes it, and every profile field it takes. Read this to the person first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content covered and implies a non-mutating informational role, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or explain the return format.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the informational scope and followed by a direct usage instruction. Every phrase contributes without 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 zero-parameter explainer with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what topics are covered and to present it to the person first. It could do slightly more to distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as listing_terms.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description's mention of 'every profile field it takes' refers to listing content, not tool inputs.
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 the informational scope precisely: what a Wen Receipts listing is, its cost, payment, publisher, and profile fields. It is clearly an explainer tool rather than a mutation or lookup tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 gives a clear usage instruction: 'Read this to the person first.' This indicates when the agent should invoke it relative to other listing actions. It does not list exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.