Get summary stats for a single campaign — total submissions, approved count, conversion rate, perks issued, and time-to-first-submission. Useful for an agent reporting back to its user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign to fetch stats for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the stats returned (which implies a read-only operation) but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what happens if the campaign ID is invalid. The lack of a note about side effects or data scope beyond 'single campaign' leaves some gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and metrics, followed by a brief usage context. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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, the description adequately captures what the agent needs to know: the purpose, the metrics included, and a typical use case. While there is no output schema, the enumerated metrics give a reasonable expectation of the response content. It is not overly complex, so this level of detail is sufficient.
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 schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter, with the description 'Campaign to fetch stats for.' The tool description reinforces the 'single campaign' scope but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('summary stats for a single campaign') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listCampaigns (which lists campaigns) and getBenchmarks (which likely compares against benchmarks).
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 states a clear intended use: 'Useful for an agent reporting back to its user.' This provides context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases (e.g., when not to use it), so it falls short of a 5.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: campaigns, submissions, benchmarks, pricing, actions, influencers. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even getBenchmarks vs getPricing are clearly separated by context.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (e.g., createCampaign, listActions, reviewSubmission). The verbs are varied but the structure is uniform, making the set predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's scope: campaign creation, stats, submissions, and reference lookups. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
Core lifecycle coverage is solid: create/list/get stats for campaigns, submit/review submissions. Minor gaps exist (no update/delete campaign, no single-submission detail view), but agents can work around them using existing tools.