Resolve provider-qualified candidate IDs into conservative ACE product entities. Exact GTIN or exact brand+MPN may bridge providers; title similarity alone never merges products and variant conflicts block cross-source proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | US | |
| candidate_ids | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses consequential matching behavior: resolution is 'conservative', only exact GTIN or exact brand+MPN bridges providers, and title similarity never merges. It also states a blocking condition (variant conflicts), which is meaningful guidance beyond the schema. It does not address side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, but the core matching behavior is well exposed.
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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the critical matching rules immediately after. Every clause carries semantic content: conservative resolution, exact GTIN, exact brand+MPN, title-similarity prohibition, and variant-conflict blocking.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the resolution policy well, but leaves gaps: the role of country is undocumented, the format/provenance of candidate_ids is unstated, and the return behavior is unspecified. The matching rules make the tool usable, but the missing country and output semantics prevent full standalone 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds some meaning to candidate_ids by calling them 'provider-qualified' and implying they are the IDs to be merged using GTIN/brand+MPN, but it never describes the optional country parameter or the exact string format expected. The matching criteria are indirectly useful but do not fully document the two parameters.
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 names the operation ('Resolve ... into conservative ACE product entities') and the input ('provider-qualified candidate IDs'), giving a specific verb and resource. The second sentence's exact-ID matching rules also help distinguish it from more permissive discovery or claim tools in the sibling list, even though 'ACE' is left as a domain acronym.
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 establishes the intended use (canonicalizing provider-qualified IDs into product entities) and the operative constraints: exact GTIN or brand+MPN may bridge providers, title similarity alone never merges, and variant conflicts block proof. It clearly conveys when the tool applies, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state formal when-not-to-use conditions.
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 target distinct workflow stages (discovery, identity, claims, decision, referral), and the detailed descriptions help separate them. However, ace_check and commerce_preflight both expose ACE Verdict decisions, and verify_global_offer is an explicitly legacy alternative to commerce_preflight, so an agent can still misselect among the verification/decision tools.
All names are readable snake_case, and action tools use a verb_object pattern while query/metadata tools use noun phrases. The split is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent (e.g., product_discovery vs resolve_product_identity), and the commerce_/commercial_ prefix variation adds a minor wrinkle.
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a well-scoped service and is reasonable for a broad commerce intelligence domain. The count feels slightly heavy because there are several descriptive/policy tools and at least one legacy overlap (verify_global_offer) that could be consolidated.
The set covers the core pre-purchase workflow: discovery, identity resolution, claim compilation, verification, recalls, merchant readiness, trust, referrals, and routing. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit claim-management or decision-status retrieval separate from the decision products, but these do not create dead ends.