list_sellersSellers observed on tracked listings (the competitive seller universe) with their classification and rating. Optional channel filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 50). | |
| channel | No | Filter by channel code, e.g. amazon-in. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source ('tracked listings') and output fields ('classification and rating'), but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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 one concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope without redundant words. Every phrase ('observed on tracked listings', 'competitive seller universe', 'classification and rating') adds value.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the domain scope. It lacks explicit alternatives or caveats, but the presence of annotations and output schema fills most gaps, making it complete for basic usage.
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 100% for both 'limit' and 'channel', so the schema already provides clear meaning. The description only mentions 'Optional channel filter', which adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema states.
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?
Description clearly identifies the resource (marketplace sellers) and adds specificity with 'tracked listings', 'competitive seller universe', and 'classification and rating'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_competitors, though the focus on sellers provides some implicit 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 implies usage for viewing competitive sellers via 'observed on tracked listings', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternative tools. The 'Optional channel filter' is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance.
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.
Most tools target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.