get_merchantEvery field the registry holds on one merchant: schema fields, structured hours, raw feedback history, platform-observed operational stats, and per-field provenance with timestamps. Maximal data, zero opinion — the registry never scores or ranks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchant_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'maximal data, zero opinion' indicating non-destructive read and unbiased data, but does not disclose potential performance implications, rate limits, or response size expectations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with essential information, no fluff. Every word adds value.
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 complexity (many fields, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable high-level list of data categories. It could be more specific about operational stats and provenance, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's broad output.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but only mentions 'one merchant' implicitly. It does not clarify the format or source of 'merchant_id', adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 the tool retrieves every field the registry holds on a single merchant, listing specific data types (schema fields, hours, feedback, stats, provenance). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'search_merchants' (list) and 'get_registry_meta' (metadata).
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 usage when full merchant data is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no when-not scenarios, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., validity of merchant_id).
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.
Every tool has a clear and distinct purpose: booking operations (place, modify, cancel, status), merchant discovery (search, details, availability), registry metadata, and feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using underscore_case (e.g., place_booking, get_merchant, search_merchants). Verbs are descriptive and consistent across the set.
9 tools are well-scoped for a booking registry server, covering all necessary operations without being overly numerous or sparse. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search merchants, get details and availability, place/modify/cancel bookings, check status, submit feedback, and registry metadata. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.