orb_list_itemsList items (the things you bill for). Orb API: GET /items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (1–100, default 20). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor (from pagination_metadata.next_cursor). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds 'GET /items' (reinforcing read-only) and the domain clarification 'things you bill for,' but no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, auth requirements, or response shape.
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?
A single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource; the parenthetical adds domain meaning without bloat. Appropriate length.
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 tool with fully described optional params and clear sibling context, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks any mention of return/pagination metadata, but the cursor schema references pagination_metadata, and the readOnlyHint covers side effects.
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%; both limit and cursor have descriptions including defaults, bounds, and cursor provenance. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, so baseline 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?
States 'List items' with a clarifying parenthetical defining items as billing objects. It is clearly distinct from the singular orb_get_item sibling by verb/resource, though it does not name the alternative explicitly.
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?
No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer it over orb_get_item or other list tools.
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.