Retrieve Vinted sales filtered by status—in-progress, completed, canceled, or all—with pagination to track order progress and outcomes.
Your sales and their status (in_progress, completed, canceled or all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | in_progress |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not disclose pagination/result-size behavior, ordering, or the critical default that only in_progress sales are returned unless status is set. The status enum repetition adds no behavioral 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?
A single compact sentence with the resource and filter dimension front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly hurts clarity but not economy.
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 2-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits too much: page size/pagination, default filtering behavior, and result shape are all left to guesswork.
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 coverage is 0% and the description only restates the status enum values already present in the schema. The `page` parameter is completely undocumented in both places, and the default status behavior is not explained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the resource ("Your sales") and the scope (own sales, implicitly distinct from list_purchases), and enumerates the status dimension. It is clear what data is returned, but it never uses an explicit verb like "list" and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus list_purchases, get_transaction, or the other sales-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase "Your sales".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.