Fetch detailed Walmart product data by item ID, including price, availability, brand, images, rating, seller, description, specifications, and variants.
Get a Walmart product. Returns a Walmart product: price, availability, brand, images, rating, seller, description, highlights, specifications, and variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Walmart item id (the numeric id in a /ip/{id} URL) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (price, availability, rating, variants, etc.), which is genuine value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/expired item_id), rate limits, or auth requirements.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Slightly redundant ('Get a Walmart product. Returns a Walmart product:'), but the field enumeration is informative rather than padding.
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?
A single-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; listing the returned fields compensates well for the missing output schema. Only the absence of usage/routing guidance keeps it short of 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the item_id description already explains the numeric id in a /ip/{id} URL, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing param-level beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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+resource ('Get a Walmart product') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like walmart_search or walmart_product_reviews though, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of hop order (e.g. use walmart_search first to obtain an item_id), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the required item_id and the sibling names in the tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.