get_eeat_competitorsGet E-E-A-T analysis results for a guide's competitors
Retrieves the E-E-A-T analysis results for the top competitors of a guide.
Poll this endpoint until pending is 0 to know when the full analysis is complete.
Individual competitor results are available as soon as their status is done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guideId | Yes | ID of the guide whose competitors should be returned |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers the async polling behavior and incremental result availability, but does not mention read-only nature or potential side effects.
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?
Four sentences with no waste: first states purpose, next three provide essential usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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 hints at response fields (pending, status) and polling, but could be more explicit about the full return structure. Still adequate for a simple tool.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter guideId, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline.
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 gets E-E-A-T analysis results for a guide's competitors, distinguishing it from related siblings like get_eeat and create_eeat_competitors.
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?
Provides explicit polling guidance ('Poll this endpoint until pending is 0' and when individual results are available), but does not compare to alternatives like get_eeat.
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 target distinct resources (guides, eeat, intent, internal_links, meta, outline, score, credits, tokens). However, some pairs like create_eeat and create_eeat_competitors are very similar and could cause confusion, though their descriptions clarify the difference.
Tools consistently use a verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, delete_). Minor inconsistencies include 'get_aissistant_tokens' (typo) and 'get_credit_ledger' (singular vs plural), but overall the pattern is clear.
28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive SEO analysis platform covering guides, multiple AI features, EEAT, credits, and tokens. A few tools could be merged (e.g., get_credits and get_aissistant_tokens), but the count is still reasonable.
The tool surface covers CRUD for guides and most AI features, plus token/credit management. A notable gap is the lack of a get_score tool after create_score, and some features like updating EEAT analysis are absent. Overall, the core workflows are supported.