Medidas corporais do membro WHOOP: altura (m), peso (kg) e frequência cardíaca máxima. Dados de wearable, não substituem avaliação médica profissional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable caveat that the data is from a wearable and not a substitute for professional medical evaluation, which exceeds the annotation coverage and provides transparency about data limitations.
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 concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and a caveat. No unnecessary words or redundancy; it is well-structured and direct.
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?
The description gives the core data fields and a medical disclaimer, but omits any explanation of the input parameter and does not mention output format or potential optionality of fields. Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about parameter handling.
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?
The only parameter 'account' is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description does not clarify what 'account' refers to (e.g., user ID, member ID), leaving the parameter ambiguous. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clearly states that the tool provides body measurements (height, weight, maximum heart rate) for a WHOOP member, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like whoop_cycles or whoop_sleep. The resource and implied action are unambiguous.
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 implies when to use the tool (when body measurement data is needed) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives or state any preconditions. The specificity of 'body measurements' gives clear context, though explicit usage guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.