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 'Get all transactions,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., time range, status). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose 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 complexity (a read operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like pagination handling, return format, or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and siblings that might overlap, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'shop_id,' 'limit,' and 'offset.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions for a shop'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transactions_by_receipt' or 'get_shop_receipts', which limits its specificity. The phrase 'all transactions' provides some scope but could be more precise about what 'all' entails.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_transactions_by_receipt' and 'get_shop_receipts', it's unclear if this tool is for a broader transaction list or specific use cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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