ebay_get_seller_funds_summary

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description still adds real operational context: the required sell.finances scope, the empty-success edge case, and the critical caveat that eBay demands Digital Signatures on Finances calls for EU/UK sellers while this server does not add them. That last point is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by edge cases and prerequisites in order of importance.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the data shape, the empty-result case, the auth scope, and a platform-level limitation — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single marketplaceId parameter is fully described in the schema (header override, defaults, examples). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the seller's funds not yet paid out') and enumerates exactly what is returned (available, processing, on-hold, total). This scope ('not yet paid out') cleanly separates it from sibling payout/transaction summary tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 'not yet paid out' framing and the note that it returns success with no data when nothing is pending give clear context for when the call is meaningful. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. ebay_get_payout_summary) or stating an explicit when-not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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