Retrieve validated Shopee Affiliate commissions by validation ID from billing reports; does not prove payment.
Consulta comissões validadas por validationId do painel de faturamento; não comprova pagamento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| validation_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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine context beyond them: the result represents validated commissions and explicitly does not constitute proof of payment, which matters for downstream decisions. It stops short of describing the paginated retrieval behavior implied by the limit/cursor/max_pages parameters.
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 that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the most important caveat. 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-value shape need not be described. However, for a paginated read tool with four params at 0% schema description coverage and no sibling routing, the definition leaves real gaps an agent needs before invoking it 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% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden. It only alludes to validation_id; limit, cursor, and max_pages — the pagination contract — are explained nowhere, and the fact that max_pages caps traversal is undocumented.
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 (consulta) and resource (comissões validadas) plus the key by which it is retrieved (validationId) and the source system (painel de faturamento). It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_conversion_report or summarize_report, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance and names no alternative, despite several report-oriented siblings (get_conversion_report, summarize_report, export_data). The caveat 'não comprova pagamento' is a semantic limitation of the data, not routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.