crystal_list_materialsList normalized materials and real SKU counts from the current verified bracelet catalog. Counts do not claim coverage for loose beads, components, or raw crystals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hasMore | Yes | ||
| coverage | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| materials | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | Yes | ||
| sourceUrls | Yes | ||
| totalCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main behavioral addition is the data source specification ('current verified bracelet catalog') and the disclaimer about coverage. This adds some value but does not disclose pagination or sorting 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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action and resources, and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies what it does not cover.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has three parameters with no documentation. The description covers data scope and limitations but completely omits parameter usage, which is essential for invocation. The agent cannot determine how to use 'query' or the pagination cursor.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (limit, query, cursor). The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for proper usage. The description should at least mention how 'query' is used for filtering materials.
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 uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('normalized materials and real SKU counts') and clearly scopes to 'current verified bracelet catalog'. It also explicitly states what it does not cover (loose beads, components, raw crystals), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crystal_search_products which might cover a broader catalog.
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 provides clear context on the tool's scope (verified bracelet catalog only) and its limitations (counts not covering other categories). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when to use / when not to use' guidance, the boundary descriptions implicitly guide proper usage.
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.