Artsy Analytics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error conditions. For an analytics 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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure given the many sibling tools in this domain.

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 provides basic context but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what format the time series data returns, what time granularity is used, whether data is real-time or historical, or how this differs from other analytics tools. For a tool with no output schema, more detail about return values would be helpful.

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 description mentions 'revenue amounts' which adds some context about the data returned, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema already fully describes all three parameters with their purposes, defaults, and enums, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed sales analytics with time series data'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling analytics tools (like 'get_partner_sales_stats' or 'get_partner_time_series_analytics'), which would require more specific scope definition to earn 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 12 sibling analytics tools. With multiple tools covering partner analytics, sales stats, time series, and custom queries, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for specific analytical needs.

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