Compare up to five exact Avito listings side by side to check model, memory, condition, included accessories and quoted defects before judging prices.
Refresh up to five exact listings side by side. No automatic bargain/risk score. Compare model, memory, condition, included accessories and quoted defects before prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that no bargain/risk verdict is produced and that the comparison is refreshed live, which sets correct output expectations — a genuinely useful addition beyond the annotations.
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 with the capability front-loaded and the caveat second. The trailing 'before prices' is slightly compressed prose but still earns its place by sequencing attributes ahead of price.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the scope limit, the non-goal (no scoring), and the attributes compared (model, memory, condition, accessories, defects), which implicitly describes the returned structure. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. 'Up to five exact listings' partly compensates: it identifies the input as listing URLs (not search queries) and matches the maxItems=5 bound. It never states that at least one URL is required, nor the URL form expected.
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 and resource — refresh/compare exact listings side by side — with the hard limit of five that separates it from get_listing (single listing) and search_listings (discovery). Siblings are not named explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'Compare ... before prices' implies the situation (deciding between known listings) and 'No automatic bargain/risk score' rules out expecting a verdict. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to get_listing for a single item, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.