Daily SII score history for a stablecoin: a list of {date, score, grade} only.
Parameters:
coin: symbol, slug or contract address (resolved like entity_read)
days: lookback window, 1-365 (default 30)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | ||
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "score_historyOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the exact return shape and that only {date, score, grade} is returned, which is useful. It says nothing about read-only nature, caching, rate limits, or behavior for unknown coins, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
Front-loaded purpose followed by a clean parameter block; no filler sentences. The '{date, score, grade} only' phrasing efficiently signals scope in a few words.
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 exists, but the description supplies the return shape itself, and both parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage. The main unmet need is usage routing against siblings, not call mechanics.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does: coin accepts symbol, slug or contract address (with resolution behavior), and days is a lookback window bounded 1-365 with a default of 30. Only the exact resolution rules are left to the referenced entity_read.
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 resource and scope: daily SII score history for a stablecoin, and even names the exact return shape ({date, score, grade}). This implicitly differentiates it from get_stablecoin_scores, but the description never explicitly says it is the historical counterpart to that sibling.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings like get_stablecoin_scores or basis_answer. The reader must infer that this is for historical lookback rather than current scores. A single 'use X for current scores' clause is missing.
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.