payping_get_productFetch a product by code from a PayPing merchant account to get title, description, price (Toman), stock, tax, image, and category.
One product by code: title, description, price (Toman), stock, tax, image, category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result includes fields like price in Toman, stock and tax, which is mild extra context; it says nothing about auth needs, error behavior for a missing code, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the key scoping fact ('by code') comes first. It is terse to the point of missing context, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so the enumerated fields are redundant rather than necessary, and for a single-parameter read-only tool the description is adequate. It nonetheless leaves usage context and error/missing-product behavior unstated.
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 0% for the single 'code' parameter, so the description carries some burden. 'One product by code' establishes that code identifies the product, but adds no format, source, or constraints (schema only gives maxLength 100) beyond that.
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 states a specific resource (one product) and the lookup key (by code), and the listed fields make the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly name payping_list_products as the alternative, but 'One product by code' implicitly contrasts with the list sibling.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The reader can infer it is for fetching a single known product, but nothing routes the agent between this and payping_list_products or payping_create_product.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.