get_creator_statisticsGet time-series creator statistics. When shown as a paid stub, calling this tool returns x402 payment requirements for the REST endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creatorId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait that when shown as a paid stub, calling the tool returns x402 payment requirements. This is valuable context not captured in 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?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds an important caveat without fluff.
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 description is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, covering both the main action and the paywall behavior. However, it lacks guidance on how the response relates to other statistic tools and does not clarify the difference from get_creator_statistic, so an agent may still be uncertain in context.
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 schema has one parameter (creatorId) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter or its expected format/meaning at all, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 the tool gets time-series creator statistics, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling get_creator_statistic, but 'time-series' and the title's 'history' imply a historical data focus.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_creator_statistic or get_creator_posts. The description only mentions a paywall behavior, which is not usage guidance.
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 are clearly distinct, but get_creator_statistic and get_creator_statistics are easily confused since they differ only by singular/plural and both involve statistics. get_creator and get_creators also have similar names, though one is single-profile lookup and the other is search.
All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix pattern, but there are minor deviations: get_creators uses plural for search while others use singular, and get_creator_statistic vs get_creator_statistics creates ambiguity. Overall the pattern is readable and predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a creator data lookup domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of creator information without bloat or thinning, fitting comfortably in the ideal range.
The tool set provides comprehensive read coverage for the creator domain: profile, audience, CPM/pay, posts, search, and both snapshot and time-series statistics. No obvious missing operations for a read-only creator intelligence server.