Get an advertiser or game profile, including recent ad activity, creative volume, target countries, and platforms. Creative tag fields are normalized to English in the result. Example: 'Which markets and platforms is this game scaling on?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| advertiser_id | Yes | Advertiser ID returned by search_advertisers or as game_id in creative results. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that creative tag fields are normalized to English, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only profile tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two sentences and an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details and an illustrative question. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the main fields (ad activity, creative volume, target countries, platforms) and notes a data transformation (normalization). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. However, it does not mention whether the response is a single object or a list, or if there are pagination limits. The example helps contextualize the use case.
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 100% and the schema description for advertiser_id is clear (sourced from search_advertisers or creative results). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is 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?
The description clearly states it gets a profile for an advertiser or game, listing specific included fields (ad activity, creative volume, target countries, platforms). It distinguishes from siblings like search_advertisers (which returns a list) and get_creative_detail (for a specific creative).
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 description provides an example question ('Which markets and platforms is this game scaling on?') that implies a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_advertisers or get_creative_detail. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching creatives, advertiser profiles, game rankings, image similarity search workflow, etc. Overlaps like find_similar_creatives vs submit_reference_image_search are clearly separated by whether using an existing creative or a new image URL.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_creative_detail, search_advertisers, submit_reference_image_search) with snake_case. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools cover the domain of mobile game ad intelligence without redundancy. The count feels appropriate—enough to handle common tasks (search, detail, rankings, image search) without overwhelming.
The tool set covers essential workflows: finding creatives via text or image, analyzing advertiser and game rankings, retrieving creative details and insights, and generating briefs. The async image search workflow is fully supported with submit, status, and results tools.
