Retrieve active eBay listings for a seller, including title, price, condition, and image. Use for market research, inventory tracking, or competitor analysis.
List active eBay listings for a seller: title, price, condition, and image. 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: only active listings are returned, and the call costs '1 point per returned record' (a cost/rate disclosure). It does not mention auth requirements, pagination limits, or behavior for sellers with no matches.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed by the return fields and cost. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to enumerate the returned fields, but it omits pagination behavior (how start_page/max_items interact, total counts) and any indication of what an empty result means. Adequate but with clear gaps for a paginated list tool.
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 all three parameters (seller, max_items, start_page) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the seller framing, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List active eBay listings for a seller') and even enumerates the returned fields (title, price, condition, image). It clearly differs from run_ebay_seller and run_ebay_seller_feedback by nature of 'listings', but it never explicitly names those siblings to disambiguate.
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 word 'active' implies a status filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like run_ebay_item_search (keyword-scoped) or run_ebay_item (single-item). Against a sibling set this dense, the agent gets no exclusion or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.