get_payments_summarySettlement/payment activity: the net amount Amazon settled over the window (major units) plus the count of settlement/payment records synced per channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window for Amazon settled total (default 30). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds output details (net amount, count per channel) but no additional behavioral context such as data freshness, aggregation specifics, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations, so a neutral score is appropriate.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the key concept 'Settlement/payment activity', and precisely states the main outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is adequate. It explains the high-level purpose and key outputs without needing to detail return fields (output schema covers that). A small gap is the undefined term 'major units' and lack of clarity on 'per channel', but these are minor for a summary tool.
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 schema description for the single 'days' parameter is complete (100% coverage), stating it is a lookback window with a default of 30. The description does not add any further meaning or examples, so it relies on the schema for parameter understanding.
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: it returns the net amount Amazon settled and the count of settlement/payment records synced per channel. The verb 'get' and resource 'payments summary' are specific, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling summary tools like get_orders_summary or get_reimbursements_summary, though the unique focus on settlements/payments is implicit.
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 when to use this tool (when needing settlement/payment activity summaries) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.
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 data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.