Retrieve current pricing for a specific Dicker Data product code, specifying quantity to calculate total cost.
Get detailed pricing for a single Dicker Data product code at a given quantity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | No | Quantity to price at. Defaults to 1 if omitted. | |
| productCode | Yes | The Dicker Data product/part number to price. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' conveys that this is a read-only pricing lookup, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether the returned pricing is indicative or guaranteed. It is minimally transparent for a simple read operation but not richly detailed.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the similarly named sibling dickerdata_get_pricing, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape, but the core call is well-specified.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'a single product code' and 'a given quantity' aligns with the parameters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed pricing for a single Dicker Data product code at a given quantity'), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dickerdata_get_pricing, despite the word 'single' implying a narrower scope.
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 implies usage for pricing a single product code at a specified quantity, which gives some context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus dickerdata_get_pricing or any other sibling, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.