list_dealsRetrieve sponsorship deals by status or creator handle. Filter records by stage—offered, accepted, declined, cancelled, verified, or paid—to track progress.
Deals with status, filterable by status or creator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| creator | No | X handle, with or without @ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering behavior over an unfiltered list, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits for a read-only collection endpoint.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, and the resource is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the fragment "Deals with status" is grammatically ambiguous and reads as a fragment rather than a self-contained statement.
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 here, so the description should carry more of the return-shape burden; it does not say what an unfiltered call returns, how results are ordered, or whether they are paginated. Annotations plus the schema cover safety and the two params, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.
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?
Both params are optional filters and the description confirms that, which adds some meaning. But schema coverage is 50% (status has an enum with no description), and the description does not explain the enum values, the @-handle handling, or what is returned when no filter is supplied – so it only partially compensates.
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?
The description names the resource (deals) and the two filter axes, but the verb is only carried by the name/title ("list_deals" / "List deals") – the fragment "Deals with status" never states that it returns a collection. It also gives no differentiation from the sibling get_deal, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get distinction.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus get_deal, list_payouts, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implicit "filterable by status or creator."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.