get_brand_statsThe published numbers for one brand: slots held, card opens, and click-throughs to its own site. These are the same figures anyone can read on the site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brandId | Yes | From get_board or claim_free_slot. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating the figures are 'published' and 'the same figures anyone can read on the site,' clarifying that no special access or hidden behavior is involved. No contradiction with 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?
The description is two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the key concept ('published numbers for one brand'), then lists the exact metrics returned, and closes with a useful public-data qualifier.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is fully adequate: it names the data returned, the scope, and the public nature of the data. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description enumerates the main result components clearly.
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%, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The brandId parameter is already described as coming from get_board or claim_free_slot, and the description's 'one brand' framing aligns with that parameter without adding new semantic detail.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving published numbers for one brand, specifically slots held, card opens, and click-throughs. It states the resource scope ('one brand') and lists concrete metrics, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_stats tool.
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 provides enough context to infer this is for a single brand's public stats, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_stats. The usage is implied rather than directly stated.
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 targets a distinct resource or action, but get_slot_price and get_board overlap in that the board already shows how much slots are held for and which are free. The remaining tools are clearly separated by board, brand, site, and winners.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_board, get_stats, get_slot_price, get_brand_stats, list_winners, and claim_free_slot. The mix of get and list is predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this domain, covering board state, pricing, statistics, winners, and the one free-slot mutation. Each tool earns its place without bloat or thinness.
The read and analytics side is well covered, and free-slot claiming is possible, but the core bidding/outbid lifecycle is absent: get_slot_price tells an agent what it would take to take an occupied slot, yet there is no place_bid, update_bid, or release tool. This leaves a notable dead end for participating in the main BidSurvivor mechanic.