Etsy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'read-only' which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope and behavior.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with filtering, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'payments' includes, how results are returned, or error conditions. More context is needed for adequate agent use.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds that receipt_id is a filter, but this is already implied in the schema. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the action ('Get payments') and resource scope ('for a shop or a specific receipt'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions_by_shop or get_receipt. However, it doesn't specify if this retrieves all payments or a subset, making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

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 description mentions filtering by receipt ID as an option, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transactions_by_shop or get_receipt. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context or sibling tool differentiation.

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