Triage one Bazaar listing against its snapshot history: how long it has persisted, price changes, duplicate variants and a buy signal. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_url | No | Listing resource URL to match instead | |
| listing_name | No | Listing/service name to match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a specific behavioral trait—cost ($0.01/call via x402)—and implies a read-only analytical function, but does not explicitly state whether it writes, requires authentication, or describe failure 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 core purpose, and includes all essential information without redundancy. Every clause adds value, from the action to the cost model.
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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of outlining what the tool returns (persistence, price changes, duplicate variants, buy signal). It is complete for a single-listing analysis tool, though it could clarify matching behavior when both name and URL are provided.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (listing_name and listing_url), so the schema already provides the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 a specific verb 'Triage' with a clear resource ('one Bazaar listing') and enumerates distinct outputs (persistence, price changes, duplicate variants, buy signal). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as bazaar_pulse or market_intel.
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 clearly states the tool is for triaging a single listing against its snapshot history, implying usage when a user needs a historical assessment of one listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.