Retrieve feedback reviews received by an eBay seller, including rating, reviewer, and related item, to evaluate seller reputation.
Get feedback reviews received by an eBay seller: rating, reviewer, and related item. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seller | Yes | Username or store URL. e.g. cocosmartphones | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 500) | |
| start_page | No | Starting page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-record cost (1 point) and the returned fields, which is useful beyond schema, but omits read-only status, pagination behavior, rate limits, and authentication requirements.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then cost. No wasted words, and the structure makes the tool's function and pricing immediately clear.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately lists returned fields (rating, reviewer, related item). With 100% schema coverage for inputs and clear purpose, it is largely complete, though pagination interplay is left to the schema.
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 the schema already documents seller, max_items, and start_page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 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 'Get' and resource 'feedback reviews received by an eBay seller', and names returned fields (rating, reviewer, related item). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_ebay_seller (seller profile) and run_ebay_product_reviews (product reviews), even without explicitly naming alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer from the name and resource that this is for seller feedback rather than seller profile or seller items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.