Returns aggregate platform statistics. Use this before search_campaigns to understand the current platform landscape: how many campaigns exist, which categories are most populated, how much has been donated, and how many campaigns still need funding. No parameters required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (returns statistics) and lists the specific outputs (campaign count, categories, donations, funding needs). No mention of side effects or performance, but for a simple aggregate tool this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance and enumerates outputs. Every word adds value; 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It mentions sibling tool search_campaigns for context. For a simple parameter-free tool, this 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?
With no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds 'No parameters required,' which confirms the schema and provides clarity for the agent.
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 aggregate platform statistics and specifies the exact data (campaigns count, categories, donations, funding needs). It distinguishes itself from search_campaigns by advising use before that tool.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool before search_campaigns to understand the platform landscape, providing clear contextual guidance. Also notes no parameters are required, simplifying invocation.
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 clearly distinct purpose: registration, terms, donation flow steps, campaign retrieval, evidence access, search, and platform overview. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., register_agent, get_campaign, confirm_donation), making prediction straightforward.
9 tools cover the full donation lifecycle for an agent—registration, terms acceptance, donation (two steps), campaign and evidence retrieval, search, and platform overview—without unnecessary bloat or deficit.
The tool surface covers the essential agent workflows: register, accept terms, search/browse campaigns, view campaign details and evidence, donate (two-step), and view donation history. Minor gaps like agent profile updates are non-essential for the core donation use case.