Get business information for a Sweeppea account. Returns company details, address, and business settings.
Get business information for a Sweeppea account. Returns company details, address, and business settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the returned data (company details, address, business settings) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, or any constraints beyond the scope of a zero-parameter read operation.
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 short but redundant: the same two sentences appear both in the opening and under '## When to use'. This duplication does not add value and wastes space. A single concise expression would be more effective.
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's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, rich annotations), the description provides a sufficient overview. It clearly names the primary outputs, which is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, the phrase 'business settings' is somewhat vague, and since there is no output schema, a more detailed enumeration of return fields would improve completeness.
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 tool accepts no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this score is appropriate. The description mentions the output categories, which indirectly clarifies what the operation retrieves, but no parameter details are needed.
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's function: 'Get business information for a Sweeppea account' and specifies the output categories (company details, address, business settings). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_profile or get_plan, as it targets business-level data.
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?
Although the description includes a '## When to use' heading, the content is a verbatim repetition of the initial description and provides no practical guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the reader without clear direction on usage context.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.
With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.
The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.
