Artsy Analytics MCP Server

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 mentions ranking by views but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying content types and ranking metric, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed to compensate for these gaps.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds minimal value by implying the ranking is based on views, which is not explicitly stated in the schema but is somewhat redundant with the tool's name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('top-performing content'), specifying the content types (artworks, shows, artists, or viewing rooms) and ranking metric (by views). It distinguishes from siblings like get_partner_artworks_published_stats by focusing on performance ranking rather than publication or sales statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_partner_top_artworks, which might be a more specific variant.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing partnerId), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like get_partner_top_artworks or query_analytics_custom. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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