Ranked list of which Captapi routes your key calls most (0 credits). Costs 0 credits. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to include (default 30, max 365). | |
| limit | No | Max rows to return (default 20, max 100). Free — does not consume credits. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the call costs 0 credits, that empty results and failures are never charged, and that caching is fresh by default. The claim 'Pass cache=true' is not supported by the schema, which creates a transparency gap despite the useful cost-related details.
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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan, with the most important facts in the first sentence. The only issue is the redundant mention of 0 credits twice, but overall it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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 two optional schema-described parameters, the description covers purpose, cost, failure behavior, and cache behavior. The unsupported cache parameter and lack of anything describing the ranked output structure or route identifier format leave some gaps, but the tool is mostly understandable.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage for days and limit, including defaults and ranges, so the description does not need to add param-level detail. However, the description explicitly instructs callers to pass cache=true, but no such parameter exists in the schema and additionalProperties is false; this actively misleads invocation.
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 says it returns a ranked list of Captapi routes by usage for the caller's key, which makes the purpose specific and distinct from sibling account tools like account_balance or account_daily_usage. It could be more explicit about what a 'route' is and how the ranking is ordered, but the core intent is clear.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool to see which Captapi routes your key consumes most, especially when cost is a concern since it is free. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over account_daily_usage or account_request_history, and no when-not-to-use advice.
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.
The platform-prefix convention keeps most of the 178 tools clearly separated, but several clusters are genuinely ambiguous: tiktok_live_info is explicitly described as 'Identical to TikTok Live', instagram_basic_profile and instagram_channel_details both return profile stats, and facebook_profile_posts overlaps with facebook_profile_reels. The generic 'Summarizer' descriptions for facebook_summarize, instagram_summarize, and tiktok_summarize provide no disambiguating detail at all.
The dominant snake_case platform_resource_suffix pattern is followed remarkably consistently across 178 tools (e.g. youtube_channel_videos, tiktok_search_users, reddit_subreddit_posts). Minor deviations exist: the same creator resource is called 'channel' in some tools (tiktok_channel_details, instagram_channel_posts) but 'profile' or 'user' in others (facebook_profile_posts, twitch_user_videos, linnkme_profile); link-in-bio tools mostly use _page but linkme uses _profile; and the video_summarize/video_transcript pair lacks a platform prefix.
At 178 tools this is far beyond what any agent can efficiently navigate in a single flat namespace, and even individual platform subsets exceed reasonable bounds (TikTok alone has ~34 tools, YouTube ~25). The sheer breadth of the multi-platform scope partially justifies the count, but the server would be far more usable split into per-platform servers.
The read-only data surface is impressively thorough: nearly every platform has profile + content + search + comments coverage, and TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are covered end-to-end including shops, ads, transcripts, and summaries. Notable gaps are minor: Twitter has no keyword search tool, LinkedIn lacks comments, and Reddit has no user-profile endpoint, but none of these create dead ends for the server's core data-retrieval purpose.
