List customer orders with pagination, sorting, and relations. Filter by currency code and include related services or user data.
List customer orders with pagination, sorting, and relations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| include | No | Relations (services, user) | |
| per_page | No | Items per page | |
| currency_code | No | Filter by currency code (e.g. USD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, default sorting/pagination behavior, or what data is returned, leaving 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation and its notable capabilities.
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 simple list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. It omits mention of the currency filter and does not describe return values, but the core operation and major capabilities are clear.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level mention of pagination, sorting, and relations, without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List customer orders'. It clearly implies a multi-record retrieval operation, distinguishing it from get_order and create/delete siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as paymenter_get_order or paymenter_search. It only lists capabilities (pagination, sorting, relations), leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.