revenue_summaryTotal affiliate commissions for the current site over a window (default 30 days), with transaction count, average commission, and delta vs. the equivalent prior window. Data comes from WeCanTrack via the LinkPulse sync pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window size in days (1-365, default 30). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the data source (WeCanTrack via LinkPulse) and indicates it is a read-only summary returning specific metrics. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it is adequate but could mention limitations like data recency or potential delays.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main output and efficiently packs all key information with no redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is returned, the default window, and data provenance.
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 single parameter 'days' is fully described in the schema. The description adds context by mentioning the default value (30 days) and that the delta compares with an equivalent prior window, enhancing understanding 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 clearly states the tool returns total affiliate commissions with additional metrics like transaction count and delta, and specifies the scope (current site) and time window. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on content analysis.
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 implies usage for fetching revenue summaries over a given window, and siblings are clearly different domains, so there is no confusion. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative scenarios.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: at_risk_articles combines broken links with revenue loss, broken_links lists all broken links, revenue_summary gives revenue data, suggest_replacement finds alternatives, and top_articles shows top earners. There is no overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive terms like adjective_noun (at_risk_articles, broken_links) or verb_noun (suggest_replacement). No mixing of conventions.
5 tools is well-scoped for a server focused on affiliate link management and revenue optimization. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The set covers finding broken links, assessing revenue impact, and suggesting replacements, but lacks an 'apply_fix' tool to actually implement changes, which is mentioned as v1.1. Missing update/delete functionality for links.