tokportal_get_analytics_series

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond the title, such as whether it returns raw snapshots or aggregated data. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotation-covered behavioral profile, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 short sentence: 'Get analytics time series.' This is efficient and gets to the point immediately. It is not padded with fluff, but it is almost too terse, missing an opportunity to include use-case hints. The title repeats the description, doubling up, but since the title is structural rather than part of the description, it doesn't penalize. For the description itself, 4 is generous but reasonable given the brevity and clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the response contains. It does not mention the type of time series data (e.g., per-day metrics, cumulative vs snapshot mode), pagination, limits, or how 'account' affects results. With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient to fully guide the agent, especially given the complex sibling ecosystem.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new param context beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully documents each parameter. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'account' interacts with 'metric'), but that is optional given the high schema coverage. No compensatory info is needed, so 3 is fair.

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 says 'Get analytics time series' which clearly indicates a read operation for analytics data. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard, tokportal_get_analytics_contract, or tokportal_get_account_analytics, which may also retrieve analytics data. The verb 'Get' is generic, though the resource is specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other analytics-related sibling tools (e.g., tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard, tokportal_get_analytics_contract, tokportal_get_account_analytics). The description does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone. This is a significant gap given the large sibling set with overlapping purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.