Retrieve detailed Depop listing data by slug, including description, photos, price, condition, brand, size, seller info, and similar items.
Get Depop item detail. Returns a Depop item-detail page: description, all photos, price, condition, brand, size, seller info, and a "similar items" carousel when the page has one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Depop item URL slug, e.g. from a search result's id field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and notes the 'similar items' carousel is conditional ('when the page has one'), which is real behavioral context. It does not state error behavior for an invalid slug, auth needs, or rate limits, so it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and resource in the first sentence, with the field enumeration following. Both sentences earn their place, though the second is a long list that could be tightened slightly.
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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what the call returns, which is exactly the missing information for a detail-fetch tool. It remains silent on error and auth behavior, so it is strong but not fully complete.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the slug format and its source. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Depop item detail') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It is clearly distinct from depop_search by intent, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling depop_item_similar, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only hint at invocation context (slug comes from a search result's id field) lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no routing help from this text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.