get_v1_keyword_generator_bingDiscover the keywords people search for on Bing. Analyze their SEO potential. Group: Keyword Research. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ||
| keyword | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds context about grouping and billing ('Group: Keyword Research. Billing per call: 1 Credits') and indicates a read-style analysis behavior, but it does not disclose limitations, required inputs, or output format.
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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, the SEO angle, group, and billing. No wasted 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the tool description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what the response contains, how results are ranked, or what 'SEO potential' means, making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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 0% and the description does not mention the 'country' or 'keyword' parameters at all. The schema only provides titles and examples, and the description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect results.
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 discovers Bing search keywords and analyzes their SEO potential, with a specific verb-resource pairing. The mention of 'Bing' distinguishes it from sibling keyword generator tools for Google, Amazon, and YouTube.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the Google or Amazon keyword generators. The tool name and 'Bing' mention imply context, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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 targets a distinct SEO function: backlinks, broken links, keyword difficulty, keyword generation per platform, rank checking, SERP analysis, and website metrics. The platform-specific keyword generators (Amazon, Bing, Google, YouTube) are clearly differentiated. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a uniform 'get_v1_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase, creating a predictable and coherent pattern. The consistent use of snake_case and the same verb prefix makes the toolset easy to scan and understand.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for an SEO data provider. Each tool represents a meaningful API endpoint without unnecessary duplication or bloat. The count falls comfortably within the ideal range for a focused server.
The toolset covers core SEO workflows: link analysis (backlinks, broken links, authority), keyword research (difficulty, generators, rank), and SERP/traffic metrics. Minor gaps exist, such as missing site audit or content explorer tools, but the provided surface handles typical use cases effectively.