Fetch public contributor cards from Yahoo Shopping's “More Yahoo experts” carousel to identify experts featured on a team profile.
Yahoo Shopping featured expert roster. Returns the contributor cards in the public "More Yahoo experts" carousel on Yahoo Shopping's team profile. Use yahoo-shopping-author for one contributor's profile and paginated article archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the data comes from a 'public' carousel and returns contributor cards, implying a read-only retrieval, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or response shape in any detail.
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 two focused sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second immediately redirects to the right sibling for a narrower need. There is no filler or redundant restatement 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?
For a zero-parameter, annotation-free roster endpoint with no output schema, the description states the source and return subject well enough. It could be slightly more complete by describing the shape or scope of the returned contributor cards, but the essential call context is present.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately avoids inventing inputs, making the baseline 4 appropriate for a zero-parameter endpoint.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Returns,' and identifies the exact resource: contributor cards in the public 'More Yahoo experts' carousel. It also explicitly differentiates this roster tool from the sibling yahoo-shopping-author tool, which handles individual contributor profiles.
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?
It gives clear routing guidance by naming yahoo-shopping-author as the alternative for one contributor's profile and article archive, implying this tool is for the full featured-expert roster. It does not add explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond that alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.