store_redemptions_mineLists the store redemptions made by the token owner on a StreamElements channel, supporting limit and offset for paging.
List the store redemptions made by the token owner on this channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip, for paging | |
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to the token owner rather than the whole channel, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, nor about ordering or result shape.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinguishing scope ('token owner') sits before the channel qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 read-only, fully-schema-documented list endpoint with no output schema and zero required parameters, the definition supplies the one non-obvious fact an agent needs, that results are self-scoped. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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 100%, so limit, offset, and channel are already documented in the schema. The description's 'on this channel' loosely gestures at the channel parameter's default behavior but adds no format or resolution detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (store redemptions) plus a scope qualifier ('made by the token owner'), which distinguishes it from the unqualified store_redemptions_list sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining the boundary explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from the wording alone.
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 phrase 'made by the token owner' implies when to use this tool (self-scoped lookups) versus the broader list/search siblings, but no alternative is named and no condition or exclusion is spelled out. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.