Compare stats across two date ranges, such as last week versus this week, to identify performance shifts and behavioral changes.
Compare stats between period A and period B (YYYY-MM-DD dates), e.g. last week vs this week.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a_end | Yes | ||
| b_end | Yes | ||
| a_start | Yes | ||
| b_start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses little: it confirms the input date format (YYYY-MM-DD) but says nothing about whether periods are inclusive, whether A is the baseline, how deltas are reported, or what data must exist first. For a 4-parameter analytical tool this is a thin disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence with the core operation first, the format constraint second, and a concrete example last. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context, yet it never says what 'stats' are returned, how the two periods are presented, or what happens on empty ranges. For a comparison tool with four required inputs this leaves material gaps.
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 the properties carry only titles like 'A Start', so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by mapping the four params to two periods and fixing the date format, but it never clarifies inclusivity of start/end or the direction of the comparison.
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 (compare) and resource (stats) scoped to two named periods, with an example. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_stats by the two-period comparison framing, but it never names an alternative to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.
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 'last week vs this week' example implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_stats or any prerequisite (e.g. data must already be imported). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.