Retrieve a Whatnot live show's current shop feed, including every product, auction, and giveaway listing visible in the show with seller ratings.
Get a Whatnot live show's current shop feed. Returns a Whatnot live show's current shop feed: every product, auction, and giveaway listing currently visible in the show, each with its seller's rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Whatnot live show id, e.g. from a browse 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 burden. It does disclose the return contents (every product, auction, and giveaway listing currently visible, each with the seller's rating), which is useful behavioral context. It omits pagination behavior, whether the feed is live-refreshing, and any auth or rate-limit constraints.
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 sentences, but the second restates the first almost verbatim ('Get a Whatnot live show's current shop feed. Returns a Whatnot live show's current shop feed: ...') before adding the genuinely useful detail about products, auctions, giveaways, and ratings. The redundant lead-in is wasted space.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys both the input source and the shape of what comes back. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination or freshness notes).
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 description coverage is 100% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents how to source it. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Whatnot live show's current shop feed'), which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings whatnot_browse, whatnot_seller, or whatnot_categories, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 routing guidance. The only hint about invocation context ('id ... from a browse result's id field') lives in the input schema, not the description, so the description itself provides no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.