list_pricesRetrieve prices newest first with cursor pagination, filtering by product, pricing model, or active status to review available payment options.
List prices.
Newest first; pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many objects to return, 1–100. Default 10. | |
| model | No | ||
| active | No | ||
| cursor | No | `next_cursor` from the previous page. | |
| product | No | A product id, `prod_…`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds ordering ("newest first") and the cursor round-trip pattern, but says nothing about default filtering, whether inactive prices are included, or result size behavior beyond the schema default.
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 filler, and the pagination rule is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is redundant, though the space is used almost entirely on pagination at the expense of filters.
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, five optional filters of which only some are documented, and enum values with unspecified semantics (e.g., what `active` does), the description leaves an agent guessing about result composition. It should at least state default filtering and what the returned price objects represent.
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 coverage is 60%; the model and active enum parameters have no descriptions at all. The description spends its only parameter mention on cursor, which the schema already documents ("`next_cursor` from the previous page"), so it does not compensate for the undocumented filters an agent most needs to understand.
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?
"List prices" restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding no scoping detail beyond the title. It doesn't clarify what kind of prices, whether all are returned regardless of active/product state, or how this differs from create_price/update_price.
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 indication of when to use this list versus filtering by product or model, or which optional filters matter. Usage is only implied by the tool name. Pagination instructions describe mechanics, not when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.