Audit a connected Meta ad account (via Adspirer): scores each ad, flags wasted spend, and returns prioritized actions. Spends 5 credits. Omit accountId to audit the demo account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 30). | |
| accountId | No | Adspirer ad_account_id (optional → demo). | |
| roasTarget | No | Target ROAS (default 2.5). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'Spends 5 credits', disclosing a cost behavior. Also describes the audit process (scores ads, flags waste, returns actions). With no annotations, this provides reasonable transparency about what happens.
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 information-dense sentences with no wasted words. Action, product, cost, and special case are all front-loaded.
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?
Description is adequate for a simple tool with 3 optional parameters, but lacks output details (no schema) and could mention related tools or side effects. Credit cost is useful but otherwise minimal context.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds marginal value by noting default values and the demo account behavior, but these are already implied in the schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool audits a Meta ad account, with specific actions: scores ads, flags wasted spend, returns prioritized actions. Verb 'audit' + resource 'connected Meta ad account' is distinct from siblings (find_leads, reveal_contact).
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?
Description mentions omitting accountId to audit demo account, implying optional usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: auditing ads, finding leads, and revealing contact details. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: audit_ads, find_leads, reveal_contact.
Three tools is appropriate for the server's focused purpose of ad auditing and lead generation. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The tools cover the core workflow of auditing ads and finding/revealing leads. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for managing or updating leads after revelation, but the set is well-scoped for its intended use.