Verify reseller authorization via MT Salesguard.
Checks whether a reseller DID has been authorized by a brand
to sell specific products. Returns authorization status, brand info,
authorized SKUs, and expiry.
Args:
reseller_did: Reseller DID (e.g. "did:web:sneakerstore.com")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reseller_did | Yes | Reseller DID (e.g. "did:web:sneakerstore.com") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / reseller_did / descriptionAdded value: +"Reseller DID (e.g. \"did:web:sneakerstore.com\")"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the query-style description, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the shape of the result ('authorization status, brand info, authorized SKUs, and expiry'), but says nothing about what happens when a DID is unknown or unauthorized, nor about errors or rate limits.
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?
Purpose and return contents are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema's parameter description and is the only wasted text.
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?
A read-only, single-parameter lookup with an output schema, so most structural burden is covered elsewhere; the description still conveys what is verified and what is returned. Missing only edge-case behavior for unknown or unauthorized DIDs.
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?
Only one parameter, with 100% schema coverage including the same DID example, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args block repeats the schema text verbatim and adds no extra constraints on DID format or validation.
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 specific verb and resource – verifying reseller authorization for a brand's products – and enumerates what comes back (status, brand info, SKUs, expiry). The 'reseller' scope implicitly separates it from the generic mt_salesguard_verify sibling, though no sibling is named.
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 purpose sentence implies when to call it (checking whether a reseller DID may sell specific products), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison to mt_salesguard_verify or mt_salesguard_register.
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.