nexscope_data_cj_creators_rankings_agenciesTikTok Commerce Intelligence CJ: creators/rankings/agencies API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, minimum 1 | |
| sort | No | Sorting conditions | |
| country | Yes | Lower case country code | |
| category | No | Organization classification | |
| pageSize | No | 1–20 items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what the ranking is ordered by, how rankings are scoped by country, whether results are paginated or capped, or how fresh the data is. For a data-retrieval tool with a ranking dimension, this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. The sentence conveys no actionable information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a description.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and no elaboration on what an 'agencies' ranking contains or how it differs from the commercial/growth rankings, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the semantic purpose of the call remains unstated.
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 description coverage is 100% and all five parameters (page, sort, country, category, pageSize) are documented in the schema, so the description rightly does not need to re-explain them. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no extra meaning such as valid values for `sort` or what `category` classifications are accepted.
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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('TikTok Commerce Intelligence CJ: creators/rankings/agencies API'), naming a domain but not a verb or operation. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the tool returns a ranked list of agencies, agency metadata, or something else, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling rankings_commercial and rankings_growth tools.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance is given. The three sibling creator-ranking tools (agencies, commercial, growth) are indistinguishable from the description alone, leaving the agent to guess which ranking variant to call.
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.