get_itemEverything about a single item: full facets, photos, where it is, who is selling it and how well-proven they are, a price guide computed from comparable items on the network, and the adjacent services a buyer usually needs next (finance, inspection, conveyancing, transport).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Item ref from search_market, e.g. 'acme-motors/offering:stk991' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data is returned (facets, photos, location, seller credibility, price guide, adjacent services), which is important given the absence of an output schema.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates content. It is slightly dense as a run-on, but every phrase contributes necessary information about what the tool returns, so it remains efficient.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the complete return value, and it does so by listing all major categories of item information. For a tool with one simple parameter, this is comprehensive and leaves no significant gaps for the agent's decision-making.
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% coverage with a clear description and example for the single 'ref' parameter. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that this tool retrieves comprehensive details for a single item, enumerating categories like facets, photos, location, seller info, price guide, and adjacent services. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_market (which lists items) and price_guide (which only provides a price guide). The verb 'get' plus resource 'single item' is specific and unambiguous.
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 you already have a specific item ref, and the schema notes the ref comes from search_market, which establishes a clear workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-item scope and reference to search_market provide adequate context for when to use this tool.
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.