fiverr_seller

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses a 'real browser-rendering backend' and sources public data from server-rendered Fiverr pages, which hints at potential latency and scraping behavior. It also states the data is 'normalized,' adding context about output transformation. This goes beyond a simple description but could still mention error cases or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second lists the return fields and data source. Every sentence earns its place, with no irrelevant fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It lists return fields, which is valuable because there is no output schema, and explains the data sourcing method. It could mention failure modes (e.g., invalid username, seller not found) or explicitly state that it returns a single object, but overall the description provides sufficient 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 input schema already covers the sole parameter 'username' with a clear description and example (from a search result's seller_username field). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema. It confirms that the tool fetches a seller profile but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or edge cases. Baseline 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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Fiverr seller profile.' It enumerates the exact fields returned (display name, country, seller level, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fiverr_search or fiverr_gig. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 a Fiverr seller profile is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fiverr_gig or fiverr_search. The parameter description 'e.g. from a search result's seller_username field' provides some context on where the input comes from, but there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly scoped.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.