tvs_historyHistorical Total Value Secured (TVS) time series for an L2 project or all projects; accepts range (7d/30d/90d/180d/1y/max, default 30d) and optional project slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Specific project (default: all projects aggregate) | |
| range | No | 7d | 30d | 90d | 180d | 1y | max (default 30d) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "range": "90d",
+ "slug": "arbitrum"
+ },
+ {
+ "range": "1y"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Historical TVS time series data",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns a time series and specifies default range (30d), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
Given output schema exists, the description adequately covers the core functionality. Could mention that it returns data points for each time interval, but is sufficient for a simple tool with good schema and annotations.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters with defaults and allowed values. Description repeats this information, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clear verb and resource: 'Historical Total Value Secured (TVS) time series for an L2 project or all projects'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'tvs_breakdown' by specifying time series versus breakdown, and from 'activity' by being specific to TVS.
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?
Indicates when to use (historical TVS) and accepts range/project, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like 'tvs_breakdown' or 'activity'. Provides minimal guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.
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.