orb_list_couponsList coupons in the Orb account. Orb API: GET /coupons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (1–100, default 20). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor (from pagination_metadata.next_cursor). | |
| show_archived | No | Include archived coupons. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'GET /coupons' reinforces a non-mutating call. It does not describe the response envelope, default archived filtering, or rate limits, but the safety profile is adequately covered by the annotation.
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 two short sentences with no filler, placing the purpose first and the API reference second. Every element contributes meaningfully without unnecessary elaboration.
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 read-only list operation with three optional, fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential invocation context. It does not spell out exact return fields, but no output schema is provided and the response is reasonably implied by 'List coupons' and the GET /coupons endpoint.
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 limit, cursor, and show_archived are each fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, and with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'List coupons in the Orb account', and reinforces it with the exact Orb API endpoint, GET /coupons. This clearly distinguishes the tool from all sibling list tools by resource and makes its function immediately understandable.
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 account scope and explicit API endpoint clearly indicate this is the tool for enumerating coupons, and no alternative coupon-listing sibling exists to confuse it with. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a resource-scoped list operation the context is clear enough.
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.
Every tool name clearly specifies a distinct action and resource (e.g., list_subscriptions vs get_subscription). There is no ambiguity between tools as each targets a unique combination of verb and noun.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'orb_<verb>_<resource>' in snake_case. This makes them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 26 tools, the set covers many resources and operations for a billing platform. While slightly above typical range, each tool justifies its existence given the domain complexity.
The tool surface provides extensive read capabilities and basic customer CRUD, but lacks create/update/delete for most other resources (e.g., subscriptions, invoices) and missing operations like void or cancel. This creates notable gaps for full lifecycle management.