get_indexRetrieve a specified alignment index's full historical series by ID or alias, including DAI, FV, WEAP, or F2W, to inspect trends over time. Note: only DAI currently includes history.
One index with its full history series (GET /indices/{id}). Only dai has history today. Cost: 10 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Index id or alias (DAI, FV, WEAP, F2W). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: a metered cost (10 credits) and a data-coverage limitation (only dai has history), both of which materially affect invocation decisions. It does not describe response pagination or size.
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?
Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the constraint, then the cost. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description must imply the return shape, and 'full history series' does so at a high level, while cost and the dai-only limitation cover the operational concerns. A brief note on series granularity or response size would make it fully complete.
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% and the id parameter's enum includes every accepted alias, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no format or alias guidance beyond the endpoint path template, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('One index with its full history series') and even names the underlying endpoint, which pins down exactly what is returned. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_indices (single vs. collection) without opening any schema.
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 note 'Only dai has history today' is genuinely actionable guidance — an agent knows that calling this for FV/WEAP/F2W will not yield history and should prefer another sibling. The credit cost gives a further selection signal. It stops short of 5 because no alternative tool is named explicitly for the non-dai case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.