Get full details for a specific campaign by id. Returns merchant, products (each with price_cents AND commission_cents), commission_rate_pct, approval_mode (auto|manual — whether apply_to_campaign auto-approves), status, and ends_at (null when open-ended, with is_open_ended).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Campaign id (UUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, actively naming the fields returned, clarifying approval_mode as auto_approve behavior, and explaining ends_at null/open-ended semantics with is_open_ended.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the rest is a compact, high-signal list of returned fields. Every sentence/clause contributes, with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a read-only single-id tool with no output schema, the description carries the return format burden well by enumerating key fields and conditional behavior. It does not specify possible status values, which is a small gap, but it remains complete enough to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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 coverage is 100%; the id parameter is already fully documented as 'Campaign id (UUID)'. The description only restates that the lookup is by id, adding no meaningful extra semantics 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific campaign by id.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like list_campaigns by emphasizing single-campaign, full-detail retrieval, and from get_product by naming campaign as the resource.
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 phrase 'for a specific campaign by id' gives clear context that this tool is for fetching an individual known campaign, not for browsing campaigns. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is clear.
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 clearly target distinct resources and actions, but there is some overlap: get_profile and get_my_earnings both expose balance/cap information, and list_my_profiles could be confused with get_profile. The descriptions are generally clear enough to avoid serious misselection.
Every tool name follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_product, list_campaigns, submit_post, update_profile, etc. The verbs match the intended actions, and there are no mixed naming conventions or vague style deviations.
Twenty tools is slightly heavy, but the count is reasonable for the scope: the server covers products, campaigns, posts, earnings, profiles, notifications, asset uploads, and AI tool usage/reviews. Each tool serves a recognizable purpose, so the size feels like breadth rather than redundancy.
Core workflows are present—search products, get campaigns, apply, generate tracking links, submit posts, view earnings, manage notifications—but there are notable gaps. There is no way to list past posts or retrieve a post_id except from submit_post, no list of campaign applications, and no tool discovery endpoint for the AI tool slugs used by declare_tool_usage and write_tool_review.
