get_api_external_historyIt retrieves the product's historical price information for the relevant store. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | The market where the product's price history is recorded. It must exist within the system. | Migros |
| barcode | Yes | The product's GTIN/EAN barcode number | 8690767671081 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions billing ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, or side effects. The description is not misleading but is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and billing information without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple retrieval operation, but it omits details about return values, error handling, or whether the market parameter is optional (though the schema notes it). It is not incomplete to the point of confusion, but could be more thorough given the lack of annotations and output schema.
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?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (barcode and market), including that market must exist in the system. The tool description adds only the synonym 'relevant store' for the market parameter, which does not significantly enhance understanding. Given high schema coverage, the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving historical price information for a product at a specific store. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and a distinct resource ('historical price information'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely handle search or product listings.
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 implies the tool is used when historical price data is needed (e.g., 'relevant store' suggests providing a market), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search or marketList. It gives some context but lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search, paginated product listing, product-by-market pricing, price history, recent products, and market names. The main overlap is that product_of_market can optionally include price history while a dedicated history tool also exists, so an agent might occasionally choose between them.
All tool names share the get_api_external_ prefix, but the remaining portion is inconsistent: some use camelCase (getProducts, marketList), some use snake_case (get_db_info, product_of_market), and some use bare nouns (history, last, search). This mixed convention makes the tool surface feel less predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a product barcode and pricing API. Each tool covers a meaningful query type without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The read-oriented surface covers searching, listing, product-market pricing, price history, recent updates, and market filter data. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated product-details-by-barcode endpoint across all stores without requiring a store name, though search partially fills this.