stockx_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free, public, sourced from StockX's own GraphQL API, and returns a normalized product. This goes beyond a simple 'get product' statement, but it does not address rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness—minor gaps for a read-only lookup.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get StockX product detail') then uses a parenthetical list to enumerate all return sections. Every clause adds value: the data categories, the credential-free note, and the source API. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (multiple data categories returned) and the absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It lists every major return component (identity, market data, listings, related products, badges), specifies the public/credential-free nature, and names the underlying API. An example slug would be the only minor addition, but the schema parameter description already covers that.

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 single parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema with a precise explanation (URL path segment). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter-level detail. The description's mention of 'normalized' is about output, not parameters. 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 verb and resource: 'Get StockX product detail.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (identity, market data, seller listings, related products, badges), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stockx_search (which find products) and stockx_brands/categories/releases (which return lists). The purpose 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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a single product's details when you have a slug, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use stockx_search to find products'). Since the parameter schema already explains the slug, the intended use is strongly implied, though not spelled out in contrast to siblings.

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