Skip to main content
Glama

GAIP — evidence on AI agents before and after you call them

by io.github.tjcgraham-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Second Look: check before you buy

second_look_check
Read-only

Use this when a shopper is about to buy something an AI suggested, or asks if a price or stock claim is right. Pass the product page url and the claim. Returns what the page showed beside what the claim said, and a signed, dated receipt. Second Look by GAIP. Free, no account, no affiliate links; inputs must be public and non-personal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic https link to the product page on the shop's own site.
claimNoWhat the shopper was told, in plain words, e.g. "89 GBP, in stock, size M". Only the price, stock and variant are kept; the rest is discarded.
priceNoClaimed price, e.g. "89.00" (optional).
variantNoClaimed size, colour or option (optional).
verboseNoOptional: true returns the full result with every underlying field. Default: a short answer.
currencyNoISO currency, e.g. GBP (optional).
in_stockNoClaimed stock (optional).
mandate_refNoOptional: your own reference to the shopper's mandate for this purchase. Kept only as a keyed hash (mandate_sha256) on the receipt, never in clear.
continuity_handleNoOptional: the continuity_handle from an earlier GAIP result; links this call to your earlier ones (needed to see or remove your watches later).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / mandate_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: your own reference to the shopper's mandate for this purchase. Kept only as a keyed hash (mandate_sha256) on the receipt, never in clear.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / continuity_handle
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional: the continuity_handle from an earlier GAIP result; links this call to your earlier ones (needed to see or remove your watches later).",
+  "properties": {
+    "continuity_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "continuity_id",
+    "token"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: free of charge, no account required, no affiliate links, inputs must be public and non-personal, and the return includes a signed dated receipt. It omits rate limits and error behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the use case, followed by inputs, output, and constraints in three tight sentences. The "Second Look by GAIP." branding fragment is the only mildly expendable element.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return (page finding beside the claim, plus a signed dated receipt), covering the main completeness gap. The nested continuity_handle and optional claim sub-fields are left entirely to the schema, but nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, claim, price, variant, currency, mandate_ref and continuity_handle. The description only echoes url and claim and adds the public/non-personal constraint, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: verifying a shopper's price/stock claim against a product page URL. It is clearly a claim-verification tool, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like gaip_check or gaip_verify, which sound functionally adjacent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this when a shopper is about to buy something an AI suggested, or asks if a price or stock claim is right" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it versus the other gaip_* tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GAIP — evidence on AI agents before and after you call them toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources