payping_get_productRetrieve a PayPing product's details—title, description, price in Toman, stock, tax, image, and category—using its unique product code. Supports order, invoice, and catalog lookups.
One product by code: title, description, price (Toman), stock, tax, image, category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / code / titleRemoved value: -"Code"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_productArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_productDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the full safety profile (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the description's burden is light. It usefully discloses the return contents, which matters because there is no output schema, but adds nothing on auth, error behavior, or lookup failures.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('One product by code') and then the returned fields. No wasted words, though the fragment style lacks the structure that would make the field list scannable.
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 simple single-item read on an annotated, zero-config tool, the definition is nearly sufficient: safety is covered by annotations and return contents are enumerated in lieu of an output schema. Only the parameter format and error handling for an unknown code are unaddressed.
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%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'code' — and it does, implying the parameter is a product code that selects a single product. It stops short of stating the code format or source, so it only partially compensates for the annotation-free parameter.
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 ('One product by code') and enumerates the fields returned (title, price, stock, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling payping_list_products, though 'by code' implicitly distinguishes a single-item fetch from a list.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'by code' hints that a product code is required, but the description never says to prefer this over payping_list_products when a code is known, nor does it state any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.