Returns the full SLA history for a wallet address.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"wallet": "<wallet>"
},
"name": "get_sla_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | Wallet address (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns full SLA history, but does not mention any pagination, auth requirements, potential size, or what 'full' implies. It implicitly reads as a read-only operation, but lacks deeper transparency.
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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and immediately communicates the primary function.
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 the simple one-parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the structure/format of the returned SLA history or any limitations, which would improve completeness. It meets the minimum viable bar but leaves room for more detail.
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 already describes the sole parameter 'wallet' as 'Wallet address (0x...)' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Returns the full SLA history for a wallet address' clearly identifies the action (returns), the resource (SLA history), and the scope (wallet address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity or get_agent_claim_history by focusing on SLA-specific history.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and one-sentence description.
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.