mcp-server-reddit-ads

get_daily_performance

Read-only

Get day-by-day performance metrics for the past N days, with daily breakdowns and USD amounts, to spot trends or spikes.

Instructions

Day-by-day performance for the trailing N days, broken down by date, with money metrics in USD. Use this to see a trend or spot a spike. For window totals use get_performance_report, or compare_periods for a like-for-like change against the previous N days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_daily_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Number of trailing days. Default 7.
`account_id`	No	Ad account id. Falls back to REDDIT_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.4Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by noting money metrics are in USD. It does not discuss rate limits or data aggregation details, but the annotations sufficiently convey the read-only nature. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, but the description states the output is by date with USD metrics. It could mention specific metrics (e.g., impressions, clicks), but for a simple trailing-period tool with two parameters, this is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('days' and 'account_id'), so the description need not elaborate. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns 'day-by-day performance for the trailing N days, broken down by date, with money metrics in USD.' It also distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives like get_performance_report and compare_periods, making the tool's unique value obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this to see a trend or spot a spike' and provides clear alternatives for other use cases: 'For window totals use get_performance_report, or compare_periods for a like-for-like change against the previous N days.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.