Get current product prices with calculated price_per_kg. Returns EUR pricing for all in-stock products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tenant slug | |
| product_slug | No | Specific product slug (optional — omit for all) | |
| response_format | No | Response detail level: "concise" (default, key fields only) or "detailed" (all fields) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: EUR currency, in-stock filtering, and calculated price_per_kg. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it clarify behavior when product_slug is provided vs omitted.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the output scope and currency. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple three-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the description gives essential return context (EUR, in-stock, price_per_kg). However, the lack of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation leaves some gaps around filtering behavior and response details.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for slug, product_slug, and response_format.
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 states a specific action and resource: get current product prices, including the computed price_per_kg. It clearly identifies the tool's domain, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like search_products.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_products. It only restates what the tool does without exclusions or routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.