Get platform statistics
Returns current platform statistics: total framework count, control count, cross-framework mapping count, and domain count. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes no authentication required, which is useful for behavioral expectations. However, with no annotations provided, there is no contradiction, but the description could add more detail about rate limits, data freshness, or whether the counts are cached. The current info is adequate but minimal.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and all information is front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary and to the point.
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 this is a simple, parameterless stats tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what statistics are returned. It does not include potential response structure or edge cases, but for such a straightforward tool, it is complete enough.
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 schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (total framework count, control count, etc.), which goes beyond the bare 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 it returns platform statistics and specifies the exact counts provided (framework count, control count, cross-framework mapping count, domain count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific frameworks, controls, or courses.
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 states that no authentication is required, implying it's a low-risk, generally useful endpoint. It does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer it's for a broad overview, while siblings are for specific resources.
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.
Multiple tools cover overlapping crosswalk and coverage territory: agent_coverage_crosswalk, agent_coverage_report, agent_cross_framework_map, agent_crosswalk_pair, and agent_combined_coverage could all be chosen for similar questions. The near-duplicate agent_get_framework_controls and agent_get_framework_controls_by_name also creates avoidable ambiguity.
All tools share the agent_ prefix and snake_case style, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: many are verb_noun (agent_buy_crosswalk, agent_search_courses, agent_get_framework), while others are noun phrases or descriptive fragments (agent_capital_by_function, agent_combined_coverage, agent_controls_touched_by, agent_signals_this_week). The convention is readable but not uniform.
27 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and the set feels heavier than necessary because several crosswalk/coverage tools could be consolidated into a smaller family. The broad domain justifies variety, but the count is bloated by overlapping query surfaces and at least one redundant route.
The domain is well covered for a read-only compliance intelligence platform: framework discovery, control lookup, crosswalk analysis, course search, funding-signal exploration, and purchase-link generation are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to inspect full control lists for arbitrary domains or retrieve mappings for a specific target control, but agents can generally work around them.
