Etsy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation with filtering, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like pagination handling (beyond schema parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if filters yield no results. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 ('List orders/receipts for a shop') and adds key context ('with optional filters'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error handling), output format, and usage context. For a tool with this complexity, the description should provide more guidance to compensate for missing structured data.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filters', which aligns with parameters like min_created and was_paid, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('orders/receipts for a shop'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_receipt' (singular) and 'get_transactions_by_receipt' by focusing on multiple receipts with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_transactions_by_shop', which might overlap in scope.

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 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_receipt' (for a single receipt) or 'get_transactions_by_shop' (for transaction details). There's no explicit context for when this tool is preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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