Check local mode and reference of a Shopee affiliate account; does not authenticate or verify Shopee ownership.
Mostra modo e referência LOCAL da conta. Não autentica nem comprova titularidade na Shopee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| synthetic | Yes | ||
| account_reference | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious caveat beyond those: it explicitly warns that this is a LOCAL read that does not authenticate or prove Shopee ownership, preventing a plausible misuse.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core scope statement is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately, so every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the no-param signature is trivially covered. The only remaining gap is that 'modo' is not defined in prose, leaving the precise semantics of what is returned partly to the output schema.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; a baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument account inspection.
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?
It states a verb and resource ('Mostra modo e referência LOCAL da conta'), but 'modo' and 'referência LOCAL' are undefined, so it is unclear what status is actually being inspected. It never distinguishes itself from the offer/link/report siblings, which makes selection harder.
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 second sentence gives a genuine negative guardrail ('Não autentica nem comprova titularidade na Shopee'), telling the agent what this tool cannot be used for. However, there is no positive when-to-use condition and no alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.