Get one creative's delivery metadata and English creative insights, including opening hook signals, scene descriptions, and creative patterns when available. Example: 'Why does this winning creative work?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creative_id | Yes | Creative ID returned by search_creatives, find_similar_creatives, or get_creative_rankings. |
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 describes the tool as retrieving data (read operation), but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It also omits any authentication, rate limit, or side effect details. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the function and key outputs, and the second provides a concrete example. Front-loading is effective.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and sample outputs. However, it lacks information about the return format or structure, and the phrase 'English creative insights' could imply language constraints that are not explained. Overall, it is mostly complete but leaves minor gaps.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter creative_id, with a description in the schema. The tool description adds value by specifying where the creative_id comes from (search_creatives, find_similar_creatives, or get_creative_rankings), which helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema.
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 the tool retrieves 'one creative's delivery metadata and English creative insights' and lists specific data points like opening hook signals and scene descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_creative_rankings which focus on rankings, and search_creatives which is a search tool.
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?
Usage is implied through the example question 'Why does this winning creative work?', suggesting it is used for deep analysis of a specific creative. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like find_similar_creatives or get_creative_rankings, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
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.
