get_donationRetrieve a specific donation by its ID from a Fourthwall shop. Use it to look up donation details when you have the donation ID and need the record.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns donation by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| donation_id | Yes | Native donationId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a concrete rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop plus a link to the rate-limiting guide, which the agent cannot get from the annotations alone.
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 with no wasted words, though the structure leads with the italicized rate-limit banner and pushes the actual purpose ("Returns donation by id") to second position. That is a minor front-loading inversion rather than a real flaw.
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 simple two-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition is adequate, and the rate-limit disclosure is a useful addition. It does not, however, note the not-found behavior or any returned shape, and there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 both parameters (donation_id and the private account label) are already documented in the schema, including the useful note that the account is a label and not an authorization proof. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, 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?
"Returns donation by id" states a verb and resource, but the name (get_donation) and title (Get donation by id) already say exactly the same thing, so this reads close to a restatement rather than added specification. Unlike a strong definition, it does not distinguish this from the sibling list_donations or explain the single-record scope.
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 is given: it never states that this is for fetching one known donation versus listing donations via list_donations, nor any prerequisite such as needing the private account label. The only instruction is a rate-limit notice, which is throttling behavior, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.