sprkly_get_billing_summarySubscription status, current plan, period end, purchased handles and the last few billing events. No payment method details; the Stripe customer id is truncated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds transparency by disclosing that payment method details are omitted and that the Stripe customer ID is truncated, which are important limitations an agent should know. This enhances understanding of what the tool returns and does not return.
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 a single, tightly packed sentence that clearly lists contents and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the primary content and has zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.
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 read-only summary tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of what will be returned (subscription status, plan, period end, purchased handles, billing events) and what will not (payment details, full Stripe ID). This is sufficient for the agent to know what to expect.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, and the schema already confirms no inputs. No additional parameter information is necessary.
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 billing summary information, listing specific components (subscription status, plan, period end, purchased handles, billing events) and explicitly notes what is excluded (payment method details, truncated Stripe ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_summary and get_analytics by focusing on billing specifics.
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 implies usage when billing-related information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool, such as when full payment details are required.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: media ingestion, draft creation, scheduling, deleting, updating, validation, approval, analytics, and account/profile listing. The only slight overlap is between sprkly_list_profiles and sprkly_list_scheduled_posts, but they serve clearly different purposes (target selection vs. queue view).
All 16 tools follow the exact sprkly_verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs are consistent (add, delete, draft, get, list, request, schedule, update, validate) and nouns are clear (media, scheduled_post, account_summary, analytics, profiles, etc.). No style mixing or vague naming.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 sweet spot but each tool covers a distinct part of the content-scheduling lifecycle. The count feels justified given the breadth of features (media, drafts, scheduling, approvals, analytics), though a few tools could be merged (e.g., get_account_summary could be part of analytics) without much loss.
The surface covers the core workflows well: draft, schedule, update, delete, approve, validate, and analyze. Minor gaps exist—there's no explicit tool to list drafts or edit a draft after submission, and no direct way to unpublish or cancel an approval—but the domain is well-served for typical scheduling needs.