[Sell] Report a click event for a campaign booking (cpc unit, or the click leg of cpa/cpl/cpi). Returns a clickId used to correlate a later conversion/postback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clickId | No | Optional caller-supplied click id for de-duplication/attribution. | |
| context | No | ||
| campaignId | Yes | ||
| occurredAt | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value (clickId) and its purpose (correlation with later conversion/postback), which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., billing impact, idempotency), authentication requirements, or duplicate handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 core purpose and followed by the return value. Every word earns its place; there is 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?
The tool has 4 parameters, a nested object (context), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the primary purpose and return value but omits essential details about parameter semantics, especially for context and occurredAt, and does not explain the structure or constraints of the request. This is insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 only 25% (only clickId has a description). The tool description does not compensate for the other parameters (campaignId, occurredAt, context). campaignId is implied by 'campaign booking', but occurredAt and context are completely unexplained. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter names.
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 action ('Report a click event') and the resource ('campaign booking'), with specificity about ad types (cpc, cpa/cpl/cpi click leg). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_impression and report_conversion by focusing on click events.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for click events on cpc units or the click leg of cpa/cpl/cpi. It implies the tool is not for impressions or conversions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is sufficient but not exhaustive.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping or misleading purposes: buy_campaign and buy_placement are aliases of create_campaign, list_placement actually creates a placement, and get_attribution/get_campaign both provide campaign stats. The report_* tools are distinct but similarly named, increasing selection risk.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are notable deviations: buy_campaign/buy_placement use 'buy' instead of 'create', list_placement is a creator not a lister, and simple nouns like 'wallet' and 'whoami' break the convention.
At 31 tools, the server feels heavy. Several tools are redundant aliases (buy_campaign, buy_placement) or could be consolidated (multiple report_* and list_* variants), making the surface unnecessarily large for the ad marketplace domain.
The core lifecycle is covered: campaign/placement creation, delivery, reporting, attribution, refunds, and cashouts. However, there are gaps like no update_campaign, no true list_placements, and no get_placement, leaving some workflows incomplete.
