get_priceGet price and stock from the published shop record using a product id returned by search. amount is Iranian rial (IRR); displayAmount is toman (1 toman = 10 rial). Null means request a quote, never free. Course prices are not available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| price | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| checkedAt | Yes |
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?
Beyond the readOnly hint, the description adds important behavioral details: it returns both price and stock, clarifies the currency units (rial vs. toman), and explains the meaning of null (quote, not free). These disclosures exceed the annotations' basic safety flags and prevent misinterpretation of the response.
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 compact and well-structured, with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys purpose, input source, currency details, null semantics, and a limitation in a few sentences. Every sentence 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 that the output schema is not provided, the description compensates by fully describing the return data (price and stock), the units, the null behavior, and the unavailable course prices. It also links the input to the sibling search tool. This covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 sole parameter `id` is given meaningful context: it is a product id specifically returned by search. This clarifies the expected value and its origin, which is more informative than the schema's simple string type and length constraints.
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's function: 'Get price and stock from the published shop record using a product id returned by search.' It names the resource (published shop record), the specific data retrieved (price and stock), and the required input (product id), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: after obtaining a product id from search ('using a product id returned by search'), and when not to use it: for courses ('Course prices are not available'). This gives clear guidance on the tool's place in the workflow relative to its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.