Fetch one Pelando deal by UUID or slug. Pass the last path segment from a pelando.com.br/d/ URL to get details and comments.
Fetch one deal by UUID or by slug.
A slug works directly, so a URL the user pasted (pelando.com.br/d/<slug>) can be handed
over with just the last path segment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly doesn't. It never says what a 'deal' response contains, whether a missing deal errors or returns empty, or if there are auth/rate-limit considerations. The only disclosed behavior is input-shape flexibility, which is closer to parameter guidance.
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 paragraphs, the core action front-loaded, and one concrete example that earns its place by resolving the URL case. No filler.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally sketch what comes back so an agent can plan next steps (e.g. whether comments or quality assessment are worth calling). It covers input handling well but leaves the return contract entirely unspecified.
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% — the schema says only 'Id Or Slug' as a bare string — so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that both UUID and slug are accepted and shows how to extract the slug from a pasted URL. That is real semantic value the schema lacks, though it doesn't specify format expectations (e.g. UUID casing) or error handling for a bad value.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one deal') and names the two accepted identifier forms (UUID or slug), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling search_deals. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation 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?
Usage is implied: use this when you already have an identifier for a single deal. The slug/URL paragraph is genuinely helpful for invoking it, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_deals or browse_feed, and no mention of failure behavior when the identifier doesn't resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.