get_v2_serp_seismometerSERP Seismometer measures SERP fluctuations for 10K+ domains and keywords that we monitor daily. We track both desktop and mobile SERP volatility over the past 30 and 90 days to allow you full SERP visibility. Check below what’s the risk for a SERP earthquake according to our Seismograph Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does add useful context such as the fact that 10K+ domains/keywords are monitored daily, the 30/90-day tracking periods, and desktop/mobile distinction. However, it fails to describe what the tool actually returns, the risk output format, or any implications of the call.
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 moderately concise but includes a poorly-worded final sentence that mixes the earthquake metaphor with billing information, making it confusing. The core information about metrics and timeframes is front-loaded, which is good, but the clutter at the end and the awkward final sentence prevent a higher score.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only contract. It covers the domain (SERP volatility), the metrics tracked (30/90 days, desktop/mobile), and the general purpose. However, it leaves out what the output format looks like, how the risk level is presented, and any caveats about the data, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use this tool.
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 are zero parameters in the schema, so the description has no parameter documentation burden to bear. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter surface.
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 measures SERP fluctuations and volatility for monitored domains and keywords, using the earthquake/seismometer metaphor effectively to convey its purpose. The inclusion of the 30/90-day tracking window and device breakdown (desktop/mobile) adds specificity to what the tool does.
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 usage is implied: you use this to check SERP volatility risk. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The billing information at the end is tangential and adds noise rather than clarifying when to use this tool.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly, particularly across versions (e.g., get_v2_website_analytics vs get_v3_website_analytics, get_v3_top_websites vs get_v2_top_websites) and platform-specific app analytics (get_v2_app_analytics_app_store vs get_v2_app_store_app_details, plus play store equivalents). While some tools have distinct purposes (e.g., filter_options, seismometer), the versioned duplicates and app store/google play splits create ambiguity about which to use.
Naming follows a consistent 'get_v{version}_{group}_{specific}' pattern, but the verb is always 'get' (even for top lists, which could be 'list'), and versions are inconsistently applied (v2 vs v3) without clear guidance. Mixed usage of 'app_analytics' vs 'app_details' vs 'top_apps' adds some confusion.
20 tools is slightly high but justified for a web analytics API covering multiple domains (websites, apps, browsers, search engines). The count is manageable, though some duplication across v2/v3 and app store/play store groups could be consolidated.
The server covers a broad range of analytics read operations, but lacks write operations (no create/update/delete) and missing some likely endpoints (e.g., keyword research, audience insights, or historical data). The presence of overlapping versions suggests possible missing features in one version.