Retrieve details for a single sub-merchant using its key. This read-only action returns the sub-merchant's information without modifying data.
Retrieves details of a single sub-merchant. This tool ONLY reads data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sub_merchant_key | Yes | The key of the sub-merchant |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'ONLY reads data,' which reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey. No additional details about auth, rate limits, or side effects are provided.
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 concise sentences front-load the key purpose and read-only nature. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.
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 read tool with one required parameter, the description covers the basic action and read-only behavior. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not hint at the structure of returned details, which slightly reduces 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, merely restating the tool's action. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves details of a single sub-merchant, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spreedly_sub_merchant_list (list) and other show tools by specifying 'single sub-merchant' and emphasizing read-only.
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 description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It implies use for fetching details of one sub-merchant, but lacks exclusion criteria or context for choosing over list or other show tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.