Retrieve a summary of Gumroad sales, including total sales, revenue, and refunds, to track store performance.
Get a summary of your Gumroad sales including total sales, revenue, and refunds
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and describes the content of the summary (total sales, revenue, refunds). However, it omits details such as time range, currency, or whether the summary is computed in real time. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key output fields. There is no fluff or redundant wording, so every word earns its place.
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 names the primary return fields (total sales, revenue, refunds) and, given zero parameters, an agent knows exactly how to invoke the tool. It lacks an output schema or details on time range, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the completeness bar. The description is sufficient for a competent agent to call the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% trivially, so the description need not explain parameters. The rubric specifies a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, 'summary of your Gumroad sales', and names three key metrics (total sales, revenue, refunds). This clearly states what the tool does and, through the word 'summary', hints at a distinction from the sibling get_sales tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings get_sales, get_products, or get_product. The word 'summary' implies a high-level use case, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.