get_pricingFull pricing breakdown for a product (tiers, monthly/yearly, affiliate rate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Specific tier name to highlight | |
| billing | No | ||
| product_slug | Yes | Product slug from the catalog (e.g., 'injectshield') |
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or how errors (e.g., invalid product) are handled.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose ('Full pricing breakdown'). No redundant or extraneous text.
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?
Adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool, but lacks output schema and behavioral details. Does not explain return format or constraints like required product existence.
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 coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by mentioning 'monthly/yearly' matching the billing enum, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema.
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 'Full pricing breakdown for a product' with specific elements (tiers, monthly/yearly, affiliate rate), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_free_tier or get_affiliate_info.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_products, get_free_tier). The description is silent on context or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the commerce and affiliate ecosystem: comparison, checkout, affiliate info, cross-sells, free tier, MCP install, pricing, recommendation, trust score, registration, partnership, consultation, search, and vendor verification. No two tools have overlapping purposes; boundaries are clear.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_products, get_affiliate_info, request_partnership). While the verbs vary, the structure is predictable and uniform, with no mixing of conventions.
14 tools is well-scoped for a commerce marketplace server covering product discovery, comparison, pricing, affiliate management, checkout, partnerships, and vendor verification. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from product discovery to checkout, including affiliate management and partnerships. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a dedicated tool for retrieving detailed product information beyond search results, but agents can work around this.