Fetch daily calorie totals for a date range by merging active and resting/BMR burn into active, resting, and total values.
merges active (metricId 22) and resting/BMR (metricId 23) series into [{calendarDate, active, resting, total}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| start | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the data sources (metricId 22 and 23) and the exact record shape returned, which matters since no output schema exists. It still omits calorie units (kcal vs kJ) and how days without data are handled.
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?
A single dense fragment with no wasted words, and the output contract is front-loaded. It is arguably too compressed — an introductory verb phrase would help — but nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece: the return structure. Units and behavior for days with partial data are the only notable gaps, which is minor for this tool's complexity.
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% and both date parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the start/end semantics (range length limits, timezone handling) beyond implying a date range via 'daily'.
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 names a concrete operation (merging active and resting/BMR series) and the exact output shape, so an agent can tell it produces daily calorie aggregates with active/resting/total fields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other daily-metric readers in the sibling list (get_daily_stats, get_stats_and_body, get_nutrition_daily_food_log).
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of an alternative tool, and no stated preconditions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the calorie-specific daily reader rather than a broader stats endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.