Retrieve Walmart product reviews by item ID or URL, including ratings, text, and author. Fetch up to 250 records per request with pagination.
Get customer reviews for a Walmart product by item ID: rating, text, and author. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Item ID or URL. e.g. 15545702811 | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) | |
| start_page | No | Starting page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether any authentication/scope is needed.
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 sentences with zero waste; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded and the cost note is a compact trailing clause.
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, the description helpfully names the returned fields (rating, text, author) and the cost per record. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only pagination behavior, which the schema's start_page/max_items parameters partially cover.
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 product, max_items (up to 250), and start_page. The description only restates that the lookup is by item ID and adds nothing about the pagination parameters, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 and resource (get customer reviews for a Walmart product) and enumerates the returned fields (rating, text, author), so an agent can distinguish it from run_walmart_product or run_walmart_product_search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 only implied: 'by item ID' tells you the required input, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over run_walmart_product or run_amazon_product_reviews, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.