Traffic exchange for independent websites: network stats, members, campaigns and site reports.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct scope: check_site queries one domain's membership, list_members enumerates all members, get_network_stats gives aggregate metrics, and get_exchange_rules returns policy text. check_site and list_members both touch membership, but their granularity (single site vs. full listing) makes selection clear.
All names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_site, get_exchange_rules, get_network_stats, list_members). Different verbs (check/get/list) map sensibly to different actions while staying predictable.
Four tools is a bit lean, but for a read-only showcase/query server the scope is coherent and each tool earns its place. Nothing redundant, though it sits near the low end of the comfortable range.
The read-oriented surface is well covered: membership check, member listing, network stats, and exchange rules. Write-side actions (joining, installing the widget, updating or pausing a card) are absent, though some are hinted at via returned instructions, leaving minor gaps for an info-only server.
Checks whether a website is in the BarterBanner public showcase. Accepts a bare domain or a URL. If the site is not listed, returns how to join.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | domain or URL of the website, e.g. example.com |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| title | No | title of the site's card, if a member |
| domain | Yes | the domain as it was checked, without scheme or www |
| member | Yes | |
| join_url | Yes | |
| link_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: accepted input forms and the not-listed branch that returns joining instructions. It stops short of richer disclosure such as lookup-scope limits or error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences: purpose first, input forms second, edge-case outcome last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the one behavioral branch that matters (unlisted site), leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke this single-parameter tool correctly.
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?
There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as 'domain or URL of the website, e.g. example.com'. The description restates the accepted formats without adding normalization rules, validation constraints, or format specifics, so it does not exceed 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?
Specific verb+resource: it checks whether a given website is in the BarterBanner public showcase, which an agent can distinguish from list_members (enumerate) and network_stats (aggregate). It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with one, so clarity is strong but not maximally differentiated.
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 only implied: the accepted input (a bare domain or URL) signals when the tool applies, but the description never states when to prefer it over list_members or how_it_works, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The rules of the exchange as the network actually computes them: what a view earns, what counts as a view, the commission, the welcome credits, and how to install the widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| free | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| commission | Yes | share of each paid view kept by the network |
| moderation | Yes | |
| register_url | Yes | |
| earn_per_view | Yes | |
| quality_range | Yes | lowest and highest price of one view, in credits |
| widget_formats | Yes | |
| widget_snippet | Yes | |
| welcome_credits | Yes | credits granted when the domain is verified |
| welcome_matched | Yes | further credits, granted as the site earns its own |
| what_counts_as_a_view | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with 'as the network actually computes them,' signaling these are the effective/authoritative computed rules rather than static documentation, which is useful nuance for interpreting the result.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that frames the concept before listing contents. The colon-separated enumeration is listy but every item names a distinct rule domain, so nothing is wasted; a shorter phrasing could have trimmed a few words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and a zero-param read tool needs little more. The description's scope enumeration is sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on whether rules are network-specific or cached could have added polish.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated topics describe the response content rather than any parameter, which is appropriate here.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (view earnings definition, commission, welcome credits, widget installation) which pins down the resource clearly, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieve'. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but none of check_site/get_network_stats/list_members overlap in scope, so an agent can still route correctly.
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 only implied: enumerating the covered topics suggests calling it whenever you need commission, credit, or view-definition details. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current size of the BarterBanner network: verified active member sites, active member campaigns, and card impressions over the last 7 days. Figures are refreshed every few minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | time of this answer, UTC, RFC 3339 |
| sites | Yes | verified, active member sites |
| campaigns | Yes | active member campaigns (platform promos excluded) |
| impressions_week | Yes | card impressions recorded over the last 7 days |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the freshness/caching behavior ('refreshed every few minutes') and the exact metric definitions and time window, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the refresh cadence. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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?
With zero parameters, a documented output schema covering the return shape, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the metric set, the aggregation window, and the data freshness.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per the baseline for a 0-parameter schema this scores 4, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what 'size' means: verified active member sites, active campaigns, and 7-day card impressions. This is far more precise than a bare 'network stats' label, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_members.
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 only implied through 'Current size' and the 7-day window; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to an alternative such as list_members for per-member detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Websites in the network, one card per site, as shown in the public showcase on the BarterBanner home page: domain, the card's title and description, and where it links. Paused members are included — the showcase lists who is in the network, not who is serving today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| members | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note beyond them: paused members are still included, with the rationale that the showcase lists membership rather than current serving status. Minor gaps remain — no ordering or size/scale expectation for the list.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource being listed and with the paused-members caveat given its own emphasized clause. Slightly dense in the first sentence's field enumeration, but nothing is wasted or repeated from structured fields.
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?
An output schema exists so the return shape need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What the description adds — the showcase semantics and paused-member inclusion — is the meaningful remaining context. It could go one step further and state what callers should use instead when they want active-serving sites only.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The stated 'one card per site' also implicitly guarantees no pagination or filter arguments exist.
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 states a concrete resource — websites in the network, one card per site — and enumerates the card's fields (domain, title, description, link target). It is clear what an agent gets back, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like network_stats or check_site, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 only implied: the 'public showcase on the BarterBanner home page' framing tells an agent this is the read path for viewing who is in the network. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing guidance against check_site or network_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_siteget_exchange_rulesget_network_statslist_membersPrivacy-first, cookieless web analytics: traffic, sources, pages, goals, funnels and site setup.
Real-time web analytics for AI agents: query traffic, funnels, revenue, and manage your sites.
Privacy-first, cookie-free web analytics. Read stats and manage sites from your AI.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
