vibecloud_affiliate_statsRead affiliate statistics, payout availability, and recent commissions to track earnings and reconcile payouts.
Alias tương thích của cloud_affiliate_stats. / Compatibility alias. Đọc thống kê, số dư có thể nhận và các hoa hồng gần nhất. / Read affiliate stats, payout availability and recent commissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds only a light characterization of the data returned (stats, payout availability, commissions) with no extra behavioral context such as pagination, auth, or rate limits, making a 3 appropriate.
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?
Every meaning is stated twice (Vietnamese then English) and the alias framing is restated in both languages, which inflates length. The core content is front-loaded but the bilingual duplication wastes space.
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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description names the main pieces of data returned and positions itself as an alias, which is largely sufficient; the undocumented parameters are the only real gap and annotations carry the safety profile.
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 0% and the description mentions neither the 'limit' nor the 'status' parameter, leaving both undocumented. 'Recent commissions' only loosely implies a limit, and the status enum (pending/approved/paid/reversed/flagged) is never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a clear verb (Read / Đọc) and resource (affiliate stats), plus the specific data returned (payout availability, recent commissions). Naming it an alias of cloud_affiliate_stats usefully signals its relationship to that sibling, though it does not distinguish itself from the affiliate_claim sibling.
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 only says it is a 'compatibility alias' of cloud_affiliate_stats; it never states when to prefer this tool over cloud_affiliate_stats, cloud_affiliate_link, or cloud_affiliate_claim, nor any precondition for calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.