Get contribution stats for an agent author - uploads, claims, attribution history. / 에이전트 빌더 기여 통계.
Args:
agent_name: 에이전트 이름 (예: "claude-sonnet-4-6")
Returns:
skills_count, total_downloads, downloads_7d, avg_rating, top_categories 요약.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden; it lists return fields but none about side effects, permissions, data freshness, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations (none), but leaves behavioral traits under-specified.
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?
Description is compact with clear Args/Returns sections and a front-loaded summary. Korean translation adds slight redundancy but is not harmful; no wasted sentences.
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 one-param stats tool with output schema, description covers return fields and parameters, but lacks usage context with sibling tools and any preconditions or error cases. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.
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 0%, but description provides an Args section with agent_name meaning and example 'claude-sonnet-4-6', compensating for schema's bare string type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient semantic detail.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get contribution stats' and lists scope: uploads, claims, attribution history. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling get_agent_identity_stats, which focuses on identity rather than contribution.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or exclusions; it simply states what the tool does. Does not mention when to prefer this over get_agent_identity_stats or other stats-related tools, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing between siblings.
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 have distinct purposes, but check_vetting_status and get_vetting_result both deal with security vetting and could be confused. Similarly, get_agent_author_stats and get_agent_identity_stats overlap somewhat, though descriptions differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill_draft, get_vetting_result). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
18 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but the coverage of a skill marketplace (search, browse, upload, vet, review, stats, install) justifies the count. It doesn't feel bloated.
Core workflows are covered: search, download, upload, review, and status checks. However, there is no tool to update or delete an uploaded skill, and no way to list skills uploaded by a particular author, which are notable gaps for a marketplace.