Compare anomalous event patterns across two time windows to identify which event types persist and how much their relative proportions change.
Check persistence of anomalous patterns across two time windows.
Returns per-event-type persistence flags with relative proportion change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| series1 | Yes | ||
| series2 | Yes | ||
| interval | Yes | ||
| min_overlap | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses very little. It does not say this is a pure read/compute operation with no side effects, does not explain how persistence is determined or what min_overlap does, and does not describe how ties or missing event types are handled.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return summary; no filler. The brevity is a virtue, though it borders on under-specification for a four-parameter nested-schema tool.
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 nested object parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter meaning — and it barely covers either. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input and semantics gaps remain substantial.
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 0% and two parameters are deeply nested objects (dict-of-dict-of-int), yet the description only hints that series1/series2 are the two windows. It says nothing about the expected shape/keys, the 'interval' string format, or the meaning and default of min_overlap.
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?
It states a verb ('Check') and a resource ('persistence of anomalous patterns across two time windows'), so the operation is recognizable. However, 'persistence' is undefined jargon and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like detect_temporal_outliers, detect_change_points, or aggregate_temporal_events, which all operate on temporal series.
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 only contextual cue is 'across two time windows', which implies you need two series, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over the temporal siblings or what prerequisite analysis (e.g., outlier detection) must come first. An agent must guess at the workflow position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.