flow_package_listRetrieve paginated lists of purchased traffic packages for dynamic residential proxies. Filter by product type and specify page and page size to view usage records.
分页查询动态住宅产品已购买的流量套餐记录。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | 当前页数 | |
| product | Yes | 产品：dynamic-no-expiry=动态住宅流量（永久），dynamic-monthly=动态住宅流量（期限） | |
| pagesize | Yes | 每页显示数量 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is paginated, which is useful, but it does not disclose details like response format limitations, data recency, or any product-specific constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the verb, resource, and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
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 paginated query with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly says the result is a paginated list of purchased flow package records for dynamic residential products. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward list semantics, though explicit return-shape details would make it 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%, so the schema fully documents page, pagesize, and the product enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the resource is a paginated list of purchased records, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: '分页查询' (paginated query) of '已购买的流量套餐记录' (purchased traffic package records) for '动态住宅产品' (dynamic residential products). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bandwidth_package_list or sub_account_flow by scope and object type.
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 usage context is implied through the product scope and '已购买' qualifier, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bandwidth_package_list or main_account_flow. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.