List your submitted referral codes with performance stats (impressions, clicks, conversions). Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context: it requires authentication via API key and specifies the performance stats returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them, though it omits details like return format or pagination.
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 long, front-loads the action ('List your submitted referral codes'), and includes both the output content and the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fillers or redundancy.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, output stats, and authentication need. It is missing details like pagination or filtering, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context (e.g., get_referral_code) make it sufficiently complete.
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% because the api_key parameter is described as 'Your API key from register_agent.' The description merely restates this requirement ('Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent)') without adding new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('your submitted referral codes') with clear scope ('your'). It also enumerates the performance stats (impressions, clicks, conversions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_referral_code (single code) and submit_referral_code (creation).
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 clearly implies by 'your submitted' that this is for viewing your own codes rather than others, and the authentication requirement establishes a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_referral_code, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.
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.
The discovery-oriented tools—search_deals, compare_vendors, track_changes, and plan_stack—overlap in purpose and can be confused, especially for queries like 'What's cheaper than Vercel?' or 'Are free tiers being removed?'. The referral and account tools are clearly distinct, but the overlapping query surface lowers the overall disambiguation quality.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern such as check_balance, submit_referral_code, and request_payout. Two tools deviate: 'leaderboard' is a bare noun and 'my_referral_codes' uses a possessive prefix, creating minor inconsistency.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful part of the AgentDeals domain: deal discovery, referral management, agent registration, payouts, and social routing. None of the tools feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool surface covers the main agent lifecycle well: registration, referral code submission and retrieval, balance checking, payouts, and friend management. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to update or remove a submitted referral code, and the payout address must be configured via an out-of-band API endpoint.
