Get one published racket by its validated catalogue slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / patternAdded value: +"^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$"Output schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Output schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Output schema / $defs / OfferPrice / properties / amount / typeAdded value: +"number"Output schema / $defs / AffiliateOffer / properties / retailer / enumPrevious value: -[
- "Amazon",
- "Padel Market",
- "PadelDogs",
- "Tennis Point",
- "Racketshop.com"
-]New value: +[
+ "Amazon",
+ "Padel Market",
+ "PadelDogs",
+ "Tennis Point",
+ "Racketshop.com",
+ "SPORTLET"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond these by adding 'published' (only published rackets are returned) and 'validated' (slug must be a known valid catalogue slug), which are useful behavioral constraints not present in the 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 a single, tightly crafted sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action ('Get one published racket') and then the key qualifiers ('by its validated catalogue slug'). Every word earns its place.
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-param, read-only tool with a full output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers all essential invocation requirements: what is retrieved, in what condition ('published'), and by what identifier ('validated catalogue slug'). No critical missing information.
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 input schema provides only type and pattern for the slug, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by identifying the slug as a 'validated catalogue slug' that selects a single racket, adding meaningful context about the parameter's role and validity requirements.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one published racket'), and clarifies the retrieval mechanism ('by its validated catalogue slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_rackets, list_racket_brands, and get_offers, which serve different purposes.
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 a clear use case: call this tool when you have a validated catalogue slug and need a single published racket. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_rackets, but the condition ('by its validated catalogue slug') provides enough contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.