check_art_listingCheck an art listing before buying. Whether a link is an independent artist in the index or a marketplace with buyer protection, reverse image search links for the picture, and the checks that catch stolen images, AI work sold as hand-made and payment scams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | The listing or shop address. | |
| image | No | The address of the artwork's picture. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by naming the concrete checks performed (reverse image search links, stolen-image and AI-work detection, payment-scam flags), which annotations alone would not convey.
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 lead clause is well front-loaded, but the remainder is a comma-spliced run-on list ('Whether a link is..., reverse image search links..., and the checks that catch...') that is grammatically loose. Information density is good, but sentence structure does not earn full credit.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully previews what the tool returns (index status, buyer-protection status, reverse image links, scam indicators). It stops short of specifying output shape or how the two optional inputs combine, leaving a small 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with only two optional params (url, image) fully documented in the schema. The description alludes to 'a link' and the picture but adds no format, precedence, or fallback semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Check an art listing') and enumerates what the check covers (index membership, buyer protection, reverse image search, scam detection). This distinguishes it well from price/commerce siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, verify_artwork_passport.
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?
'Before buying' gives a clear implied usage moment, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like verify_artwork_passport or search_art. The agent must infer the boundary between this and the passport-verification sibling.
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.