figure_historyThe revision history of one published figure: every vintage, what the publisher said in their own words, the date they issued it, and the link. Includes the restatements as pairs of published values. Call this when a number is quoted and you want to know what the same publisher said before. It states no reason for any change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| subject_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the returned history, restatement pairs, and the important limitation that it states no reason for any change.
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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds return content, usage guidance, and a limitation in four efficient sentences. There is no redundant restatement of the name or title.
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?
It covers the return content well enough despite having no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of subject_id and target leaves a meaningful 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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It only implies that subject_id identifies the figure via 'one published figure,' while the optional target parameter is left completely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: the revision history of one published figure. It scopes the result to every vintage, publisher wording, issue date, link, and restatement pairs, which clearly distinguishes it from generic figure listing or recent-change tools.
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?
It gives an explicit usage trigger: call this when a number is quoted and you want to know what the same publisher said before. It does not name when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives such as list_figures or recent_changes, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.