get_my_rewards_historyReturn the calling wallet's cumulative staking/VRM reward state: total earned to date, claimed, unclaimed, FTSO-epoch claimable, and days until unclaimed rewards burn on-chain. Read-only on-chain query. Requires OAuth scope wallet:read. Does not include a full per-epoch claim timeline (see notes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only on-chain query.' It adds behavioral context: requires OAuth scope, mentions burn mechanism and days until burn. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites and exclusions. No fluff; each sentence adds value.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only query, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, output fields, and scope limitations. The 'see notes' reference is slightly ambiguous but not critical. Complete enough for selection and invocation.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on output.
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 (return) and resource (calling wallet's cumulative staking/VRM reward state) with detailed fields. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not include a full per-epoch timeline, implying an alternative.
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?
Provides a prerequisite (OAuth scope wallet:read) and notes it is read-only, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool for per-epoch timeline. The exclusion is mentioned but vague ('see notes'), so guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action: list/compare/detail for validators and FTSO providers, network_* for distinct metrics, and get_my_* for wallet concerns. A couple of pairs could be confused (get_my_claimable vs get_my_rewards_history, and the network_* trio), but the descriptions provide enough boundary detail to pick correctly.
Naming is highly consistent: all tools use snake_case with a leading verb (get_, list_, compare_, simulate_, verify_). The pattern is predictable, so an agent can infer the shape of an operation before reading its description.
At 27 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, especially with five get_my_* personal tools, five agent-oriented tools, and three network_* tools. The broad scope explains some of the count, but many of these could be consolidated or split across separate servers.
The read-only analytics surface is quite comprehensive: validators, FTSO providers, network economics, chain activity, DeFi, FAssets, prices, feeds, personal balances, delegations, and agent status are all covered. Explicit gaps remain, such as FLR-side claimables, full tax record assembly, and a complete per-epoch rewards timeline, but these are clearly flagged as follow-on phases rather than dead ends.