Rank customers by total spend or order count to identify VIP customers and reveal spending patterns.
Rank customers by total spend or order count. Identifies VIP customers and spending patterns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of top customers to show (default: 10) | |
| sort_by | No | Metric to rank by (default: total_spent) | total_spent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool ranks customers by spend or order count and surfaces VIP customers, which implies a read-only aggregation. However, it does not describe the output shape, any limits, or whether it includes customer identifiers. Still, the behavior is mostly predictable from the name and schema.
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 short sentences with the main action first and no filler. The second sentence adds a small insight about the tool's purpose without bloating the description. This is an efficient, front-loaded structure.
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 read tool with two optional params, the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of any statement about return values or how 'VIP' is defined leaves some ambiguity. It also does not distinguish from neighboring customer tools, which matters when no output schema exists.
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 need not re-document parameters. It does directly map 'total spend' and 'order count' to the sort_by enum, reinforcing the parameter semantics. No additional format or syntax details are provided, but none are necessary given the schema.
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 ('Rank') with a clear resource ('customers') and identifies the two ranking dimensions (total spend, order count). It is distinct from sibling get_* tools by focusing on top customers rather than segments, alerts, or summaries. The phrase 'Identifies VIP customers' adds marketing flavor but does not obscure the core purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_customer_segments or get_sales_summary. The description does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the tool name alone. This is a significant gap given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.