Fetch Avito seller details by slug or URL: name, type, rating, reviews, followers, active listings, registration date, and badges.
Get an Avito seller (brand page) by slug or URL: name, type, rating, review count, followers, active listing count, registration date and badges. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seller | Yes | Brand slug or URL. e.g. steve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('Flat 5 points per successful run', implying failures are not charged) and telegraphs a read-only operation via 'Get', but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behaviour beyond the success qualifier.
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 tight sentences: purpose and returned fields first, cost second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields and disclosing cost. Only the lack of when-to-use routing against Avito siblings and any error/permission context keeps it short of full completeness.
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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Brand slug or URL. e.g. steve'. The description's 'by slug or URL' merely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Get an Avito seller (brand page)') and then enumerates exactly what is returned – name, type, rating, review count, followers, listings, registration date, badges. It is clearly distinguishable from Avito siblings such as run_avito_items_search or run_avito_categories without opening any schema.
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 phrase 'by slug or URL' implies the caller must already possess a seller identifier, so the tool is for lookups rather than discovery – but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. run_avito_items_search for locating sellers) is given. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.