Retrieve purchase revenue analytics over time for a specific product. Choose day, hour, week, or month and set the reporting length to monitor sales trends.
Get revenue analytics over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| app_id | No | ||
| length | Yes | Number of days | |
| ending_at | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | Product ID | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the purpose. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention authentication requirements (apiKey), does not describe rate limits, time-range constraints, or return format.
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 single sentence is front-loaded but so sparse that it fails to convey the necessary invocation details. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, similar to the calibration example where a one-word description scored low.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits required parameters, time-range semantics, authentication, and return behavior, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without relying entirely on the schema.
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 57%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not explain the required product_id and length, nor the optional unit, ending_at, or app_id parameters, leaving gaps where the schema descriptions are absent.
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 ('Get') and resource ('revenue analytics'), but the scope 'over time' is vague and the tool is not differentiated from analytics siblings like purchases_quantity, purchases_products, or sends_analytics. An agent cannot tell exactly what revenue dimension or granularity this returns.
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 alternatives such as purchases_quantity or purchases_products, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.