Retrieve all payment transactions for a Shopify order by order ID, including authorizations, captures, refunds, and voids with gateway, status, and amounts.
Get all payment transactions for an order including authorizations, captures, refunds, and voids with gateway, status, and amounts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | The order ID (e.g. gid://shopify/Order/123 or just 123) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what a caller will see back — gateway, status, amounts, and the four transaction types — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or permission requirements for payment data.
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 the verb first and the returned content appended; every clause adds information and none repeats structured fields.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and returned field categories well. Missing only pagination/result-volume behavior, which matters for order transactions that can be numerous.
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?
There is only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the GID/plain-ID format example. The description only implies that the input identifies an order, so it neither compensates nor detracts; 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 and resource (get payment transactions for an order) and enumerates the transaction types covered (authorizations, captures, refunds, voids). This scope is broad enough to be distinguishable from the overlapping sibling get-order-refund-details, which covers only refunds.
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 phrasing 'all payment transactions for an order' implies the when-to-use case, and the mention of refunds implies it is the broader alternative to get-order-refund-details, but no sibling is named and no exclusion or prerequisite is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.