Retrieve monthly or yearly bio age history, including earlier periods, to track bio age changes and compare current and past values.
Bio age per month or year (period: 'month' | 'year'; shift: periods back, 0 = current).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shift | No | ||
| period | No | month |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key semantics (period granularity, shift counted backwards from now, zero meaning current) that an agent needs to call it correctly, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether shift is bounded, or how many points are returned.
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 compact sentence with the resource and both parameter meanings front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, if slightly telegraphic.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are defined. What is missing is how this relates to get_bio_age and any constraint on shift, which matters for an unbounded history query among many metric-history siblings.
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 define the parameters and it does: period takes 'month' or 'year', and shift means how many periods back with 0 as the current period. That is meaning the bare schema titles ('Shift', 'Period') do not convey, though defaults and bounds are not restated.
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 resource (bio age history) and its granularity options, so the agent can tell it returns a time series rather than the single current value that sibling get_bio_age likely returns. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'history' plus the shift parameter suggests trend retrieval over time, and '0 = current' hints at how to reach the latest period. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_bio_age or how far back shift may go.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.