Fetch the App Store price point relationships for a specific app by ID, with an optional limit for pagination.
GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/appPricePoints (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/appPricePoints)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior, pagination, auth, or response shape. It is a bare endpoint string with no behavioral content.
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?
It is short, but it is a verbatim duplicate of the path with no front-loaded explanation of what the tool actually does. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 simple read-collection endpoint whose schema is fully documented, the description still omits what the relationship returns and how pagination works. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is too thin to be complete.
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 both parameters (id, limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema does the work.
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 just echoes the HTTP verb and path, which restates the tool name rather than explaining purpose. It hints at 'app price points relationship' but offers no differentiation from close siblings like apps_app_price_points_get_to_many_related.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling relationship/related tools. Nothing indicates the context in which this endpoint is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.