Retrieves the equalization relationships for a given subscription price point, listing all price points that are equalized to it across territories.
GET /v1/subscriptionPricePoints/{id}/relationships/equalizations (GET /v1/subscriptionPricePoints/{id}/relationships/equalizations)
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only relationship traversal, not pagination behavior, not whether equalizations are returned as identifiers or full resources. The duplicated path adds zero behavioral context.
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 text is short but entirely redundant, repeating the same method and path twice with no informational gain. It is under-specified rather than concise, and nothing is front-loaded that an agent could use.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a relationship endpoint that has multiple near-identical siblings, the description should explain what equalizations are and how this differs from the related variant. It provides none of that.
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% with two documented parameters (id and limit), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and the description need not compensate. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 only restates the HTTP method and URL path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys no purpose beyond what the tool name already encodes, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like subscription_price_points_equalizations_get_to_many_related or subscription_price_points_adjusted_equalizations_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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named related/relationship siblings, no prerequisites, and no context about the subscription price point resource being traversed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.