Get the most recent collaboration (one video per YouTuber) with a sponsor, sorted by publication date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sponsor ID | |
| limit | No | Number of YouTubers to return (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: deduplication ('one video per YouTuber'), sorting by publication date, and a limit on number of YouTubers. This adds significant context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, auth requirements, or error handling.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key details. Every word adds value—no fluff or 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?
Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., what fields are included per video/YouTuber) and whether pagination is supported beyond the limit parameter. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds the dedup behavior per YouTuber, which implies that the 'limit' parameter controls the count of YouTubers, aligning with the schema. No additional parameter details are provided.
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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('collaborations'), and adds specificity: 'one video per YouTuber' and 'sorted by publication date'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sponsor_recentVideos and sponsor_mostActive.
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 implies use when you need recent collaborations per YouTuber for a sponsor, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like sponsor_recentVideos or youtuber_recentSponsored. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Tools are cleanly divided into sponsor_ and youtuber_ groups with distinct purposes. Each tool targets a specific operation (search, get, stats, similar, etc.) without functional overlap.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: either sponsor_<action> or youtuber_<action>, with import_status as a single utility following the same underscore_lowercase convention.
17 tools cover the domain thoroughly—search, detail, stats, similarity, recent content, bulk import—without feeling bloated or sparse.
The tool surface provides comprehensive read and import operations for sponsors and YouTubers, including search, stats, similarity, and progress tracking. No obvious gaps for the intended analytics use case.
