get_giveaway_drawFetch details for a specific giveaway draw by its native ID, including status and winner info, to verify or manage Fourthwall shop promotions.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Get draw details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Native id | |
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile carries no burden on the description. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral trait not present in structured data — a per-shop rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds — but says nothing about auth requirements, error/not-found behavior, or response shape.
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 fragments with no waste: a rate-limit note with a documentation link, then the purpose. It is efficient, though leading with throttling rather than the tool's purpose slightly buries the front-loaded statement.
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 two-parameter read with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is still missing error semantics (unknown id, expired draw) and any hint of what 'details' the returned draw contains, which leaves a small but real gap.
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 100%, with both 'id' (native id, pattern/maxLength constraints) and 'account' (exact private shop profile label) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb+resource ('Get draw details'), and the name get_giveaway_draw ties it to the giveaway domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling finish_giveaway_draw or otherwise clarify that this is a read-by-id lookup, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when the draw id is unknown. The rate-limit sentence is operational context, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer the calling conditions on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.