etsy_top_shopsRuns one Etsy search (first 100 active listings, relevance order) and returns the shops behind it: how many of those listings each shop has, Etsy's shop sales count and opening year. Use for 'who sells on Etsy?' and 'who are my competitors?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What the seller sells, e.g. 'ceramic mug' | |
| physical | No | Drop digital downloads/patterns from the results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral scope beyond that: only the first 100 active listings are examined and they are in relevance order, which materially affects interpretation of the counts. It omits any mention of rate limits or result truncation warnings beyond the 100-listing cap.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the mechanism and the return payload, the second front-loads the use cases. No filler or redundancy.
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, but the description enumerates the returned fields (per-shop listing counts, sales count, opening year), and it discloses the 100-listing sampling window that bounds those numbers. That is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 100%, so both parameters (query, physical) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description implies the query drives a relevance-ordered listing search but adds no syntax, example, or clarification of how 'physical' alters returned shops.
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?
States a specific verb and mechanism ('Runs one Etsy search') plus precisely what is returned ('the shops behind it: listing counts per shop, Etsy's shop sales count and opening year'). This clearly separates it from siblings like etsy_shop_sales (single shop) and etsy_niche_check, so an agent can route without opening schemas.
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?
Provides concrete usage triggers: 'who sells <product> on Etsy?' and 'who are my competitors?'. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g. for a single known shop, use etsy_shop_sales), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.
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.