Resolve public product or listing availability with explicit normalized states. It reports only provider evidence and never infers inventory, reserves items or places an order. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTP(S) URL to inspect, resolve, or compare. | |
| variant | No | Public identifiers value used to scope this lookup. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: evidence-only reporting, no inventory inference, no reservation/order placement, and a $0.002 USDC cost per successful call. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent/open-world hints, and the description does not contradict them.
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?
Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, then behavioral constraints, then pricing. No sentence is wasted.
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?
Covers purpose, constraints, and cost, but with no output schema the description should specify the shape of the 'explicit normalized states' and the nested variant object remains opaque. Adequate but incomplete for a tool whose return values are not structured elsewhere.
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%, so the schema documents both url and variant. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or variant-scoping detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Resolve') and resource ('public product or listing availability') with explicit scope ('normalized states'). It does not name the sibling commerce_buyability, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the availability/buyability distinction is inferable.
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?
Provides conditions for use implicitly ('public product or listing availability') and exclusions ('never infers inventory, reserves items or places an order'), but it does not name an alternative or state when to choose commerce_buyability over this tool.
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.