get_artemis_data

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

The description says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description repeats the phrase 'for the given symbols and metrics' and includes the parameter list in the prose, making it somewhat redundant. It is not poorly structured, but it could be more concise.

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?

The description omits crucial context such as the output format, error handling, authentication requirements, or any example calls. Since there is no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps, the tool definition feels incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 repeats the parameter names without adding meaningful semantics: 'symbols' and 'metrics' are undefined, with no examples or allowed values. It does add important guidance that dates must use YYYY-MM-DD, but this only covers two of the four parameters and does not compensate for the otherwise tautological explanations.

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 action ('Get Crypto data') and the resource ('from the Artemis API'), and names the key parameters (symbols, metrics, dates). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_artemis_supported_metrics_for_symbol' or 'validate_artemis_api_key', though it does not specify exactly what kind of data is returned.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites such as validating the API key first or checking supported metrics, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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