whatnot_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns both live and upcoming shows, lists the specific data fields, and notes that the data is public and sourced from Whatnot's GraphQL API, which reassures the agent about access requirements and data origin. It could add details on pagination or ordering, but for a simple browse tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then immediately listing return fields and data source. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter read-only browsing tool, this description is nearly complete: it specifies input category, output fields, the statuses included, and the data source. Without an output schema, listing the return fields is especially helpful. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination prevent a perfect score, but the description gives enough to use the tool confidently.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Whatnot category slug' definition, except for implying that the category is used for filtering in the browse operation. Since the schema already fully documents the sole parameter, the description provides no extra semantic value.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse Whatnot live shows by category.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like whatnot_live (likely a general live shows feed) and whatnot_categories (which lists categories) by scoping to category-based browsing. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating the tool operates 'by category' and references 'GET /whatnot/categories' for the full list of category slugs, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the category-slug dependency and the mention of categories endpoint provide adequate context for choosing this tool.

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