eBay Sold Listings Search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the description earns credit for what they can't say: the call starts a run of a specific Apify Actor via mcp.apify.com using the caller's own APIFY_TOKEN and account, and returns run/dataset IDs for paging. Cost, concurrency and latency implications of the run are left implicit.

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?

Front-loaded and sectioned as Purpose / When to use / Returns / Behavior / Docs, so an agent can scan the essentials fast. The opening sentence largely restates the title, which is the only real waste in an otherwise tight block.

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 21-parameter scraper with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, return shape (one row per result plus paging IDs), auth/ownership and read-only safety. It stops short of describing row fields or what a partial or failed run looks like, which keeps it just under fully complete.

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% across all 21 parameters, including enums, defaults and deprecation notes, so the description only needs to reinforce the headline axes (keyword, marketplace, date range). It does that accurately but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get confirmed eBay sold prices') and scopes it to keyword, marketplace and date range. A reader can immediately separate this from the Amazon/TikTok/Etsy siblings because the platform and the sold-price angle are stated 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?

The 'When to use' line gives a concrete trigger: needing what items actually sold for (sold comps) for a keyword, marketplace and date range. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no direct eBay competitor exists among the siblings, so the guidance is practically complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.