crystal_get_productGet one verified bracelet by exact SKU or slug, including materials, image, source URL, related SKUs, and explicit manual-confirmation status for commercial terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| slug | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| coverage | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| sourceUrls | Yes | ||
| relatedProducts | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (materials, image, source URL, related SKUs, confirmation status) and the 'explicit manual-confirmation status' trait, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope, no redundant information. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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 simple optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers key return fields. However, it lacks explicit guidance that at least one parameter is needed, and 'verified bracelet' could be clarified. Overall adequate.
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 coverate is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'exact SKU or slug' implying exact match and that at least one is required, but does not clarify behavior if both are provided or differences between sku and slug. Provides minimal additional meaning.
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 clearly states 'Get one verified bracelet by exact SKU or slug', specifying the action (Get), resource (verified bracelet), and identifier types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crystal_search_products, which is for searching rather than exact retrieval.
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 implies when to use (when you have an exact SKU or slug), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No guidance on excluding search_products for broader queries.
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 distinct purpose: building shortlists, fetching product details, sourcing guidance across categories, listing materials, preparing inquiries, and searching. Minor overlap between search and get_product, but descriptions clarify boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent 'crystal_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., build_procurement_shortlist, get_product, list_materials), with clear and predictable naming.
Six tools are well-suited for the crystal sourcing domain, covering search, details, shortlisting, materials listing, guidance, and inquiry preparation without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the main workflows: searching, retrieving details, building shortlists, listing materials, getting guidance, and preparing inquiries. A minor gap is lack of update/delete operations, but the domain is advisory-focused.