Validate your Artemis API key to ensure it works for accessing crypto metrics and generating formulas.
Validate the Artemis API Key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "validate_artemis_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is extremely minimal and does not disclose what validation entails, what the output looks like, whether it has side effects, or any permissions required. No annotations exist to supplement this gap.
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, concise sentence. It is well-structured for its brevity, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.
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 does not mention how the API key is passed, what the success/failure output looks like, or any prerequisites. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively without further information.
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 schema declares zero parameters, but the description implies an API key input without explaining how it is supplied (e.g., environment variable, hidden config). This ambiguity reduces clarity about the actual invocation.
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 function: to validate the Artemis API Key. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on validation rather than data retrieval or formula generation.
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 or under what circumstances validation is needed. The description lacks context that would help an agent decide between this and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.