agentee

Designer stats

designer_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

The user's designer-program stats (if they are a designer-partner): units sold, revenue, accrued royalties, available for payout, royalty percent, their designer page URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`pitch`	No	Designer-program pitch to relay to the user — present when is_partner is false.
`accrued`	No	Royalties accrued from paid orders.
`landing`	No	The designer's public page URL.
`revenue`	No
`nickname`	No
`is_partner`	No
`units_sold`	No
`how_to_join`	No	How to join the designer program — present when is_partner is false.
`royalty_percent`	No
`available_for_payout`	No	Accrued royalties from delivered orders, ready for payout.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (units sold, revenue, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and lists the included fields. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core idea.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, a well-described output (fields listed), and annotations covering behavior, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what happens if the user is not a designer-partner, but the phrase 'if they are a designer-partner' provides some context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. It does not need to compensate for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving designer-program stats for a user who is a designer-partner. It lists the specific data fields (units sold, revenue, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like designer_designs or designer_submissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use designer_stats vs designer_designs. The context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentee tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct; slight overlap exists between cart_update and set_cart_quantity (both modify cart lines), and between remove_promo and cart_remove (different domains). Other groups (studio, designer) are well-separated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Consistent use of verb_noun pattern for most tools, with noun prefixes (designer_, studio_) grouping related tools. No mixed conventions or obscure abbreviations.

Tool Count3/5

31 tools is high for a single server, covering shopping, studio, and designer domains. Some tools like cart_update and set_cart_quantity seem redundant, pushing count beyond optimal.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows (search, cart, checkout, generation, designer submission) are covered. Minor gaps: no edit/delete for designs or orders, and no tool to manage saved addresses beyond viewing.

Resources

Need Help?