Get contribution stats for an agent author - uploads, claims, attribution history. / 에이전트 빌더 기여 통계.
Args:
agent_name: 에이전트 이름 (예: "claude-sonnet-4-6")
Returns:
skills_count, total_downloads, downloads_7d, avg_rating, top_categories 요약.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (skills_count, total_downloads, etc.) which is somewhat behavioral, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every part serves a clear function, with no unnecessary filler. The bilingual repetition is minor and does not detract.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. It lacks usage guidance and safety notes, but given the tool's simplicity and existing schema, this is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the 'Args' section explains agent_name in Korean and provides an example ('claude-sonnet-4-6'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare parameter definition.
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 'Get contribution stats for an agent author' and specifies what these stats include (uploads, claims, attribution history). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling get_agent_identity_stats, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_agent_identity_stats. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
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.
Several tool pairs overlap in purpose: check_vetting_status vs get_vetting_result both query security vetting, and get_agent_author_stats vs get_agent_identity_stats both provide agent statistics. Though descriptions are detailed and clarify differences, the similar names and overlapping functionality create potential selection confusion.
Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill, get_skill). Minor inconsistency exists between check_* and get_* for related status operations, but overall convention is clear.
With 18 tools, the server is moderately comprehensive, covering search, upload, download, vetting, reviews, and platform compatibility. This is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range but not excessive given the store's multi-faceted domain.
Core lifecycle is mostly covered: registration, upload, search, retrieval, download, review, and vetting. However, there are notable gaps—no update or delete operations for uploaded skills, and no method to fetch existing reviews, only post them.