High-level summary of your Dataset: record count, last ingest time, number of watchers/sources, busiest channels, plus your daily live-read usage and reset time. NOT a live Reddit call — free, rate-limited only. Use this first to understand the size and shape of your archive before querying it. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is 'free, rate-limited only' and 'requires a free Prowlo account', plus states that calling it can produce a signup link. This adds useful context about cost, limits, and authentication that the annotations alone do not convey.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists several output fields without being wasteful, though the parenthetical about requiring an account is slightly tangential. Every sentence contributes but the density of the first sentence makes it a 4 rather than a 5.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it enumerates the summary contents, states its non-live nature, rate limits, and usage order, and notes the account requirement. It lacks a formal return schema definition but that is not necessary when the description covers the key output areas.
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 input schema is empty (no parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (summary fields) and how to use it, which is sufficient given there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'High-level summary of your Dataset' and enumerates the exact contents (record count, last ingest time, watchers/sources, busiest channels, live-read usage/reset time). It also distinguishes itself from live Reddit calls by explicitly stating 'NOT a live Reddit call', which sets it apart from sibling tools like social_get_post or search_dataset.
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?
It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this first to understand the size and shape of your archive before querying it.' It also communicates a clear when-not-to-use signal with 'NOT a live Reddit call', implying that other tools should be used for live data. However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 tool pairs have overlapping purposes: keyword_* and tag_rule_* are duplicates, keyword_monitor_create is a shortcut for a subset of watcher_create, and alert_list vs get_alerts have confusingly similar names. Even though descriptions are detailed, the redundancy and naming overlap make it easy to pick the wrong tool.
The set mixes object-verb names (alert_create, watcher_create) with verb-object names (get_account, list_records) and prefix-based categories (social_*). The deprecated keyword_* tools are renamed tag_rule_*, and keyword_monitor_create doesn't follow the watcher_* pattern, creating an inconsistent naming scheme.
At 42 tools, the surface is far above the typical well-scoped range, with 5 deprecated tools and redundant paths like keyword_monitor_create vs watcher_create inflating the count. A leaner set focusing on core operations would be more manageable.
The Reddit/HN monitoring and alerting side is well covered with CRUD for watchers, tag rules, alerts, and trends plus dataset and social reads. However, the server advertises X support but has no X tools, and there's no way to post comments or manage integrations beyond viewing account info, leaving notable gaps.
