Get full detail for a single product by merchant_id and product_id: name, price, currency, availability, image, and the buyer questions, problems, and use cases it maps to. Returns a schema.org Product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchant | Yes | Agenticfeed merchant ID (customer GUID), e.g. "a9a8378c94". | |
| product_id | Yes | Product ID (product GUID) within that merchant's catalog. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses what data is returned (name, price, currency, availability, image, and associated questions/problems/use cases) and that it returns a schema.org Product. This provides sufficient transparency for a read operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and details, with no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. It does not cover edge cases or errors, but for a single-product retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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 each parameter having a description. The description adds context by mentioning 'merchant_id and product_id' and giving an example GUID, adding value beyond the schema alone.
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 explicitly states 'Get full detail for a single product by merchant_id and product_id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_products and search_products which handle lists or searches.
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 specifies the required parameters (merchant, product_id) and their purpose, making clear when to use this tool (to retrieve a single product). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tool names imply the context.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: find_merchant resolves merchant identity, get_product fetches product details, list_products enumerates products, and search_products finds products by intent. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (find_merchant, get_product, list_products, search_products), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools covering merchant discovery, product listing, detail retrieval, and intent-based search, the count is well-scoped for a product feed server and neither too few nor too many.
The set covers key read operations for a product feed, but lacks tools for browsing merchants without a prior domain or for updating/deleting products, which are minor gaps given the intended scope.