list_my_salesReturn every marketplace order for sites the user sold (incl. pending, paid, refunded, failed, disputed). Most recent first. Use to surface revenue + which orders are still inside the 30-day refund window (refundExpiresAt > now).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max orders to return (default 100, max 500) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"max orders to return (default 100, max 500)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns with read-only behavior. It adds details beyond annotations: orders returned regardless of status, sorted most recent first, and the refundExpiresAt field for refund window checks.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose and scope, then usage guidance.
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?
Given one parameter, readOnly annotation, and presence of an output schema (not shown but known to exist), the description fully covers purpose, ordering, status filters, and practical use case (refund window).
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 covers limit parameter with 100% description coverage (min, max, description). Description restates defaults but adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema.
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 clearly specifies the tool returns marketplace orders where the user is the seller, including all statuses (pending, paid, refunded, failed, disputed). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_my_orders' by focusing on seller 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 provides context for when to use: 'Use to surface revenue + which orders are still inside the 30-day refund window.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'list_my_orders'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.