Get every charge in the Prime membership payment history.
Get every charge in the Prime membership payment history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | The Amazon site to read, e.g. `amazon.de`, since each site has its own orders. By default, the user's default site (see `check_session`). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | A list of the PrimePayments, newest first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, network-dependent read. The description adds that results cover 'every charge' in the history, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume, so it adds only modest context beyond the 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope qualifier is stated immediately.
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?
With annotations covering safety, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers what remains. A brief note on multi-site behavior would make it airtight, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented, including its default behavior referencing check_session. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('every charge in the Prime membership payment history'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_gift_card_activity or get_order_history. It doesn't explicitly name the nearest alternatives (e.g. get_transactions), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 scope ('Prime membership payment history') implicitly tells an agent when this tool applies rather than a general transaction listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_transactions for non-Prime payments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.