get_curve_historyPast curve regime changes: every flip with its time, what it flipped from, and how the session closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Most rows to return. | |
| since | No | Oldest date to include, like 2026-06-01. How far back you can go depends on your plan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds return content details but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits or potential truncation due to the 'limit' parameter, which is a minor gap. No contradiction.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence delivers the core purpose and output details without any fluff. Front-loaded with the subject and highly efficient.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (flips, time, from-state, session close). However, it omits the effect of the 'limit' parameter on 'every flip' and the plan-dependent date range, though the latter is in the schema. Given good annotations and schema, this is mostly complete.
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?
Both 'limit' and 'since' are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema offers.
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 it returns 'Past curve regime changes' with specific details (time, from-state, session close), making it distinct from siblings like get_treasury_curve or get_rates_and_curve. The verb 'get history' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.
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 usage for retrieving historical curve regime flip data, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5 but fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.