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 it mentions 'optional cumulative view,' it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., data format, time granularity), whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get time series data for partner analytics') and includes a key optional feature ('with optional cumulative view'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 complexity of analytics tools and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., format, structure), how to interpret it, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 already fully documents all four parameters (partnerId, metric, period, cumulative) with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('time series data for partner analytics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling analytics tools (like get_partner_inquiry_time_series or get_partner_sales_time_series), which likely also retrieve time series data for different metrics or contexts.

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 alternatives. With 13 sibling tools, many of which appear to be analytics-related (e.g., get_partner_inquiry_time_series, get_partner_sales_time_series), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about which tool to select 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.