get_similarweb_website_top_geographiesUsage-based billing; Default request estimate: $2.25 USD (not a fixed price). Declared unit rate: $0.075 USD per similarweb_credit. Account-specific pricing and final settlement may differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Complete month in YYYY-MM. | |
| domain | Yes | Bare website hostname without scheme, path, port, or credentials. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target domain, e.g. example.com."New value: +"Bare website hostname without scheme, path, port, or credentials."Input schema / properties / monthAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Complete month in YYYY-MM.",
+ "type": "string",
+ "x-aisa-default-policy": "previous_complete_utc_month"
+}Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bare website hostname without scheme, path, port, or credentials."New value: +"Target domain, e.g. example.com."Input schema / properties / monthRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Complete month in YYYY-MM.",
- "type": "string",
- "x-aisa-default-policy": "previous_complete_utc_month"
-}Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Target domain, e.g. example.com."New value: +"Bare website hostname without scheme, path, port, or credentials."Input schema / properties / monthAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Complete month in YYYY-MM.",
+ "type": "string",
+ "x-aisa-default-policy": "previous_complete_utc_month"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely non-obvious cost context (estimated $2.25 per request, $0.075 per similarweb_credit, account-specific settlement), which an agent weighing whether to call a metered tool would value, but it says nothing about the operation's actual behavior.
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 text is short, but every line is pricing boilerplate wrapped in HTML comment markers, so the limited space is spent on something other than tool selection. It is front-loaded with billing rather than purpose.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description never says what "top geographies" means (country-level traffic distribution for a domain/month), leaving the core capability entirely undocumented for an agent scanning a large sibling list.
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 100% and both parameters are self-documenting: domain is specified as a bare hostname and month as YYYY-MM with a previous-complete-UTC-month default policy. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 contains no statement of what the tool does. It is entirely a pricing/billing banner ("Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $2.25 USD...") with no verb, resource, or scope tied to retrieving top geographies for a website.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling geographies/audience tools (get_similarweb_traffic_engagement, get_similarweb_demographics, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
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.