Get the market-rate pricing for a marketing action. Returns USD value and recommended perk type/value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | No | Action ID (e.g. ig_post, google_review) | |
| platformId | No | Platform ID (e.g. instagram, google) | |
| businessType | No | Business type modifier (default: general) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return structure ('Returns USD value and recommended perk type/value'), which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential error conditions, or any rate limits. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every phrase adds value, making it an example of concise, well-structured documentation.
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?
The tool is simple (no output schema, 3 optional params), and the description explains what the tool returns, which is essential since no output schema exists. It lacks details on default behavior when parameters are omitted, but that is partially covered by the schema's 'default' hints. Overall, the description is complete enough for a straightforward pricing lookup 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%, and each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters or their relationships. Per the rubric, the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.
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's function: 'Get the market-rate pricing for a marketing action.' It specifies the resource (pricing), the action (market-rate lookup), and the output (USD value and recommended perk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getBenchmarks or getCampaignStats, which focus on different data.
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 implies a clear use case: when you need market-rate pricing for a marketing action. It provides context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool offers pricing directly, the intent is clear, but the description doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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.