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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, as the agent lacks critical operational context.

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: 'Get all transactions for a specific receipt.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a retrieval tool, this leaves gaps in operational context, though the straightforward purpose and parameters keep it from being completely inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'shop_id' and 'receipt_id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all transactions for a specific receipt.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions'), and the scope ('for a specific receipt') is explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' (singular) or 'get_transactions_by_shop,' which might handle similar data but with different scopes or parameters, so it lacks 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_transaction' (for a single transaction) or 'get_transactions_by_shop' (for transactions across a shop). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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