get_auto_action_historyView execution history of automatic actions (stake, vote, claim) for your pool. Shows status (success/failed/skipped), amounts, transaction hashes, and timestamps. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of records to return (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| actionType | No | Filter by action type | |
| poolAddress | No | Pool address to get history for. If omitted, uses your first registered pool. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns statuses, amounts, transaction hashes, timestamps, and requires an API key. This goes beyond the schema by indicating the read-only nature and auth requirement, though it omits potential edge cases like empty results or rate limits.
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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then list key output fields and the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or fluff content.
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 read-only history tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, main return fields, and auth. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but these are minor omissions given the schema documents limit/default.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions action types (stake, vote, claim) which mirrors the actionType enum, but adds no new parameter semantics. The poolAddress behavior is already fully documented in the schema.
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 clearly states 'View execution history of automatic actions' with a specific verb and resource. It narrows the scope to stake, vote, and claim actions for the user's pool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_auto_selling_config and get_orders.
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 description implies when to use the tool (to review automatic action history) but offers no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. 'Requires API key' hints at prerequisites but does not clarify when this tool is preferred over others.
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 have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.