get_metric_timeseries_multiTimeseries for ONE metric across MANY assets in a single call.
`assets` is comma-separated (e.g. "BTC,ETH,SOL"). Prefer this over
looping get_metric_timeseries — it is one round trip instead of N, and
the values are guaranteed to come from the same read.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assets | Yes | ||
| metric | Yes | ||
| to_date | No | utc_now | |
| interval | No | 1d | |
| from_date | No | utc_now-30d |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: the single-call efficiency and the guarantee that values come from the same read (consistency). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination.
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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the assets format and the tool's advantage over the sibling, but omits explanation of metric, date formats, and interval options. Since the agent must rely on the description to fill schema gaps, this leaves ambiguity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the assets parameter format (comma-separated) but does not explain metric, from_date, to_date, or interval formats or semantics. The date defaults and interval are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. This is a significant gap for required parameters beyond assets.
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?
Clearly states the tool fetches timeseries for ONE metric across MANY assets in a single call. The verb 'get' and resource 'timeseries' are specific, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_metric_timeseries by noting the multi-asset scope.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over looping get_metric_timeseries' with a concrete reason (one round trip instead of N, and guaranteed same read). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.