get_campaignInspect Helena's free public scientific services, why sponsorship helps sustain their real operating costs, and whether supporting them fits your mandate. No payment is initiated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a concrete financial-safety guarantee ('No payment is initiated') and clarifies the content ('why sponsorship helps sustain their real operating costs'), which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds an important disambiguation about payments.
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?
With no parameters, a supportive output schema, and annotations that already establish the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description is complete for safe invocation. It explains what the user will learn and clearly signals the absence of payment side effects.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema fully documents this, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect Helena's free public scientific services') and clearly names the purpose: evaluating whether sponsoring them fits the user's mandate. It also distinguishes itself from the payment-oriented sibling sponsor_campaign by stating 'No payment is initiated.'
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 gives clear context for when to use it: to inspect the campaign and assess whether supporting it aligns with the user's mandate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'No payment is initiated' strongly implies this is the inspection step, not the sponsorship action.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action, but get_receipt and get_reach_receipt are easy to confuse because of their similar names and adjacent receipt concepts. The champions lists and relay tools are also related but their descriptions make the distinction clear enough.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_, create_, get_, list_, register_, sponsor_, verify_). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool addresses a distinct part of the sponsorship/reach workflow: information, sponsorship, receipts, rankings, profile management, and relay attribution. No tool feels redundant.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: learn, sponsor, verify receipts, list champions, register/verify profiles, and handle relays. Minor gaps exist such as no tool to list relays or list receipts by account, but these can be worked around using known IDs.