Artsy Analytics MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., granularity, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output characteristics.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and output format. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values (e.g., 'returns time-series data with timestamps and metrics').

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'time series data and response times' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining how 'cumulative' affects response times). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get detailed inquiry analytics') and resources ('time series data and response times'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_partner_inquiries_stats' which likely provides summary statistics rather than time-series data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_partner_time_series_analytics' which might be similar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_partner_inquiries_stats' and 'get_partner_time_series_analytics', the description lacks explicit context about when this specific time-series inquiry tool is appropriate versus other analytics tools.

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