gf.gcc_product_decisionPremium end-to-end GCC product decision. Price: 2.50 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | ||
| shipping | No | ||
| insurance | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| vat_rate_pct | No | ||
| delivery_days | No | ||
| duty_rate_pct | No | ||
| product_value | Yes | ||
| payment_fee_pct | No | ||
| competitor_count | No | ||
| fulfillment_cost | No | ||
| paymentSignature | No | ||
| ad_cost_per_order | No | ||
| expected_sale_price | Yes | ||
| marketplace_fee_pct | No | ||
| returns_reserve_pct | No | ||
| other_cost_per_order | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost and payment method but does not explain the tool's side effects, required setup, or expected output. The description implies a paid service but fails to disclose any functional behavior.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks essential functional information, and the front-loaded content ('Premium') does not aid comprehension. The brevity is not a sign of good structure since it omits crucial details.
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 the high complexity (17 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool without substantial additional information about its purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 17 parameters. Even the required parameters like product_value and expected_sale_price are not contextualized. The description adds no meaning or usage constraints beyond the schema's property names, leaving an agent with no guidance on how to fill the optional fields.
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 states 'Premium end-to-end GCC product decision' which is vague and does not specify a clear action or resource. It adds no differentiation from sibling tools like gf.gcc_opportunity_score or gf.gcc_portfolio_rank. The term 'product decision' is not self-explanatory and the description does not clarify what the tool actually does.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the price and payment method, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions for use. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over its siblings.
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.