Use this when an agent needs the recent harvested signals (each with text, tier, score, and source URL) backing a brand's score. Public-citable signals only — internal-only items are filtered before emit. Always carries a coverage_status describing why a list may be empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | Yes | Brand name. | |
| limit | No | Max signals to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| tier_floor | No | Minimum signal tier to include. Defaults to NOTABLE. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only public-citable signals are returned, internal-only items are filtered out, and a coverage_status field always explains empty lists. It also reveals the signal structure. This goes beyond a basic read operation, though it doesn't mention permissions or rate limits.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and every sentence adds value (usage context, filtering behavior, output guarantee). 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?
Even with no output schema, the description explains the return shape (text, tier, score, source URL) and notes the coverage_status field. It covers when to use it, what filtering happens, and output context. For a simple read tool without nested objects, this is complete.
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 provides 100% descriptive coverage for all three parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It adds contextual meaning about signal composition (tier, score) but not specific parameter constraints beyond the schema.
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 recent harvested signals (text, tier, score, source URL) backing a brand's score, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. Although it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on brand signals differentiates it from get_competitive_context and get_momentum_index.
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 opens with 'Use this when an agent needs...' providing explicit context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for the stated purpose.
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 aspect of brand intelligence: signals, competitive context, and momentum index. There is no overlap in purpose or output, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern. The verbs are uniform and the nouns clearly describe the resource being retrieved.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only brand intelligence API. Each tool provides a distinct, necessary data view without redundancy.
The tool set covers the essential read paths for the domain: raw signals, competitive landscape, and overall momentum score. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.