lemonsqueezy_get_orderGet a single order by id. API: GET /orders/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to sideload (JSON:API include=), e.g. 'store,variant'. | |
| order_id | Yes | Order id (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the API endpoint (GET /orders/{id}) and basic function, but does not provide additional behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus the API endpoint. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It correctly identifies the tool's purpose and the required identifier, though it could briefly note that the order may not exist.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no further information about parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 name and title clearly indicate retrieving a single order. The description explicitly states 'Get a single order by id', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like lemonsqueezy_list_orders.
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 usage when you have a specific order ID, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No comparison with similar tools beyond the name.
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 resource and action (get vs list for each entity, plus specific write operations). Filtering parameters further distinguish list tools. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent `lemonsqueezy_action_resource` pattern using lowercase and underscores. Actions are consistently get, list, create, cancel, or update.
18 tools cover a broad set of resources (customers, orders, stores, subscriptions, discounts, license keys, prices, products, invoices, variants, checkouts) for a comprehensive e-commerce platform. Each tool earns its place.
While reading (list/get) is well-covered for most resources, creation and deletion are missing for many core entities (customers, products, orders, etc.), which may force agents to rely on external processes. Only subscriptions and checkouts have write support.