lemonsqueezy_list_pricesList price models, optionally filtered to one variant. API: GET /prices (filter[variant_id]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to sideload (JSON:API include=), e.g. 'store,variant'. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (JSON:API page[size], max 100). Default 10. | |
| variant_id | No | Filter to a single variant id. | |
| page_number | No | Page number (JSON:API page[number]). Default 1. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the API endpoint and filter detail, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.
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 very brief and front-loaded with essential information, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.
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?
The description does not mention response structure (no output schema), pagination defaults, or other contextual details that would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior.
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% (all parameters documented), so the description adds limited additional meaning beyond noting the filter[variant_id] usage.
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 explicitly states 'List price models' and specifies optional filtering by variant_id, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that list other entities like products or customers.
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 mentions optional filtering but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions.
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.