Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only restates the data content and adds no behavioral context such as defaults, pagination behavior, or why repeated calls are non-idempotent (e.g., time-window dependence).

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and its contents with no filler or redundancy. Nothing is wasted and the key information comes first.

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?

There is no output schema and no required parameters, so the description should ideally explain return shape and default behavior (e.g., what a missing interval or range yields). It partially covers return content but leaves defaults and pagination unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (to, from, count, interval) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

Clear verb ("Returns") plus specific resource ("historical earnings data") and an enumeration of what it covers (liquidity fees, block rewards, bonding/liquidity earnings). However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_liquidity_history, get_affiliate_earnings, or get_rune_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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With several overlapping history/earnings siblings present, an agent gets nothing to help it choose this tool over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.