Retrieve local offer history observations for a specific Shopee item and shop, separated by account and mode, to track past pricing or offer changes.
Consulta observações coletadas neste servidor, separadas por conta e modo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| shop_id | Yes |
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that observations are 'collected on this server' and grouped by account and mode, giving no ordering, time-window, or pagination behavior, and the mention of 'modo' does not correspond to any schema parameter.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition, which is structurally efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance, and the 'modo' clause introduces potentially misleading content rather than useful detail.
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?
Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description still leaves the three input parameters (including two required identifiers) completely undocumented. Combined with the absent usage guidance, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions item_id, shop_id, or limit and their required/optional status or formats. It instead references an 'account' and a 'mode' dimension that only loosely (and in the case of 'mode', not at all) map to the actual parameters.
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 says it queries 'observations collected on this server', but the tool is named get_offer_history and none of its siblings or parameters are referenced, so the agent cannot tell whether this retrieves offer history, observed-offer data, or something else. The stated resource ('observações') does not clearly align with the tool name, making the purpose ambiguous rather than tautological.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as get_offer or observe_offer, despite a crowded sibling set that overlaps heavily with offers. The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.