Rate-limit-safe Meta performance metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, leads, purchases, ROAS). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| date_preset | No | ||
| meta_account_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by stating the tool is rate-limit-safe and enumerating the metrics returned, which helps set expectations beyond the annotation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. However, given the parameter count, some elaboration on parameters could be justified without harming conciseness.
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?
Despite the clear purpose and behavioral hints, the description fails to address the 7 parameters (none required) and lacks any output schema, making it incomplete for agents to successfully invoke the tool without external knowledge.
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 7 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings, usage, or required fields, leaving agents without guidance on how to set up requests.
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 Meta performance metrics and lists specific metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, etc.). The name 'get_insights' matches, and no sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose.
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 mentions 'Rate-limit-safe' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but creation tools (create_campaign, bulk_create_campaigns, create_structured, add_ad_to_adset) overlap in scope, potentially causing misselection. However, descriptions clarify differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as 'bulk_create_campaigns', 'get_insights', 'pause_campaigns'. No mixing of conventions.
23 tools cover the Meta Ads domain well, but the count is slightly high. Most tools are justified, though some could be merged (e.g., creation variants).
Core CRUD is covered for campaigns and ads, but there is no tool to create an ad set independently (only via create_structured). Creative editing and standalone ad set creation are missing, leaving notable gaps.