analyst_archive

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the non-mutating, public, read-only nature ('public', 'archive', 'historical') and informs about pagination and the 1-year cap. It also adds useful behavioral context for the analystId choices. It does not disclose rate limits or ordering, but for an archive read tool the information is sufficient.

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 long but every segment earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the variant rationale is concise, and the analyst ID list adds decision-relevant context not present in the schema. The structure is a bit run-on with heavy dashes, but it is well organized and not redundant.

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 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return type, time horizon, pagination, filters, and the distinguishing query-param behavior. The main gap is that it never explains how this differs from the similarly purposed siblings analysts_signals and analysts_signals_all, which would help an agent choose more confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by providing human-readable context for each analyst ID (e.g., 'ChainHawk, BTC & macro on-chain') and by framing period=365d as 'up to 1 year of history.' This adds meaning beyond the raw enum values, justifying a 4.

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: 'Returns a paginated archive of signals attributed to a single analyst, covering up to 1 year (365 days).' It also distinguishes itself from the path-param version by explicitly noting it is the MCP-tool-compatible variant. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like analysts_signals or feed_archive, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: it is the MCP-compatible version that uses query params instead of path params, so AI agents can call it directly without resolving a URL template. This is actionable guidance for selection. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.