Search imported payments and refunds by query, status, or order ID to review Tokopedia transaction history, with pagination and integer IDR amounts.
Search imported payments and refunds, amounts in integer IDR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| orderId | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the schema: amounts are returned as integer IDR. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset being present.
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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the one critical data-format caveat. Nothing in the sentence is wasted.
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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter semantics, result shape, ordering, and pagination behavior, so an agent can only invoke it through trial and error.
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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. It never mentions query, status, orderId, limit, or offset, leaving the agent to guess semantics such as whether 'query' is a free-text search or whether 'status' accepts a known vocabulary.
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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('imported payments and refunds'), which is meaningfully narrower than the generic name list_transactions implies. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_orders, list_shipments, or import_records, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only implicit routing signal is the word 'imported', which hints the tool is scoped to previously imported payment records rather than all transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.