Get user profile information for a Sweeppea account. Returns user details like name, email, and account settings.
Get user profile information for a Sweeppea account. Returns user details like name, email, and account settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond return content (e.g., user details), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, response format, or potential limitations. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 redundant: the opening paragraph is identical to the 'When to use' section, and the heading adds no extra information. This wastes space and makes the description feel padded rather than concise. It could be reduced to a single sentence.
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?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, read-only), and the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it omits context such as whether this returns the authenticated user's profile or how the response is structured. For a basic profile retrieval, this is adequate but not thorough enough to earn a higher score.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by specifying the return fields (name, email, account settings), which is helpful beyond the empty 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's purpose: 'Get user profile information for a Sweeppea account.' It specifies the resource (user profile) and the return content (name, email, account settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business or get_participant, which target different resources.
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 includes a '## When to use' section, but it merely restates the same purpose sentence and provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The implied usage is for retrieving the current user's profile, but explicit alternatives are not 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.
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.
