台灣電商平台（蝦皮一般賣家、商城）2026 抽成與金流費率，對比自架官網。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "platform_fees"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose scope: only Shopee (general sellers and Mall), only 2026 rates, and a comparison against self-hosted sites. It does not state that this is a read-only/static reference, nor what form the answer takes, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the risk surface is small.
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, front-loaded sentence that states platform, seller categories, year, and the comparison baseline with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, yet for a no-parameter reference tool the scope statement (which platforms, which year, what is compared) is nearly sufficient. It could additionally note the currency/units or that other platforms are out of scope, but nothing critical is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the resource scope it already names.
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 a specific resource (Taiwan e-commerce platform commission and payment-processing rates for Shopee general sellers and Shopee Mall) and an explicit comparison target (self-hosted official website). It clearly differentiates itself from the calculation/checker siblings, though it uses no explicit verb (e.g., 'look up' or 'compare').
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative sibling. An agent must infer from the title alone that this is a reference-lookup tool rather than one of the adjacent calculators.
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.