Fetch a page of the Shopee affiliate product feed, with IDs and decimals returned as strings to maintain precision.
Obtém uma página do feed oficial; preserva IDs e decimais como strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| datafeed_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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral nuance not present in annotations: IDs and decimals are returned as strings, which matters for downstream type handling. It still omits pagination behavior and whether the end of the feed is signaled.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoping, with the string-preservation caveat appended. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for a three-parameter tool.
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 no explanation, but the description leaves pagination semantics, datafeed_id sourcing, and sibling selection entirely unaddressed for a tool whose schema has zero parameter documentation. An agent cannot call it confidently without outside knowledge.
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% across all three parameters. The phrase 'uma página' hints that limit/offset paginate, but the description never names or explains limit, offset, or datafeed_id, and adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. max page size) beyond what the schema bounds already impose.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Obtém uma página do feed oficial'), so an agent knows this returns a paginated slice of an official feed. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_product_feeds or explain what 'feed oficial' means versus other feeds in this API family.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_product_feeds or the offer-search siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as where datafeed_id comes from. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.