Get your own authenticated earnings/cashback balance by currency: pending, approved, paid, plus recent commissions. Partner credentials read only their partner tag; signed-in users read only their account and claimed aliases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| earner | No | Optional assertion of your own earner id. If supplied, it must match the authenticated owner. |
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 implies a read operation ('Get') and notes authentication constraints. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is non-destructive, require specific permissions, or mention any side effects.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding scoping context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return values, but it only mentions what categories are included (pending, approved, paid, commissions) without specifying format structure or type. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents the optional 'earner' parameter with the same explanation. The tool description adds no new information about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the user's own earnings/cashback balance by currency, including pending, approved, paid, and recent commissions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like endorso_cart (cart operations) and endorso_search (search).
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 explains scope differences between partner credentials and signed-in users, providing clear context on who can see what. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the scoping is a strong guideline.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: balance for financial info, cart for generating multi-store buying links, monetize for creating affiliate links, and search for product discovery. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'endorso_<action/object>', using snake_case and a uniform prefix. The names clearly hint at the tool's function without ambiguity.
4 tools is slightly below average but appropriate for a focused affiliate marketing server. It covers the essential workflows (search, monetize, cart, balance) without being overly sparse.
The tool set covers core affiliate actions: product search, link monetization, cart generation, and balance retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for commission analytics or profile management, but agents can work around these.
