get_trendsTrack day-by-day WHOOP recovery, HRV, resting heart rate, strain, calories, sleep, and workout trends with averages over 1–90 days.
Day-by-day table and averages (avg/min/max) over the last N days for recovery, HRV, resting HR, strain, calories, sleep hours and sleep performance, plus recovery zone counts and workouts per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | How many days to look back (1-90). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (day-by-day table plus avg/min/max aggregates), which goes beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, auth, or data freshness.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the return shape and enumerates metrics without padding. Efficient, though the enumeration is long and could be grouped more tightly.
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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly (table + averages + zone counts + workouts/day). The remaining gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools, which an agent would need when choosing among them.
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 single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-90, default 7). The description only alludes to it via 'the last N days', adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource (get trends) and enumerates the metrics returned (recovery, HRV, resting HR, strain, calories, sleep hours, sleep performance, zone counts, workouts/day). It's clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_daily_overview or list_recoveries, which could plausibly cover overlapping data.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when this aggregate view is preferable to the per-entity siblings (list_recoveries, list_sleeps, get_workout), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the output description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.