Daily Buying Gauge score history (oldest first). Each entry: date, 0-100 score, tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days · snapped to the nearest supported window (30, 90, 180, 365); defaults to 90 |
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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral detail: returns entries in oldest-first order, and each entry includes date, score, and tier. No contradictions; description enriches beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences concisely cover purpose, output format, and ordering. Front-loaded with key action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 historical data tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs, outputs, and order. Could mention if pagination exists or max results, but likely not needed. Good balance for this complexity.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'days', but description adds critical info: default is 90, and values snap to nearest supported window (30, 90, 180, 365). This provides practical usage semantics not explicit in the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns 'Daily Buying Gauge score history' in order (oldest first) and specifies output fields (date, 0-100 score, tier). This distinct purpose is easily differentiated from siblings like 'get_buying_gauge' (current gauge) and 'get_treasury_history' (different metric).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for historical data, but does not state when not to use it (e.g., for current score) or compare with sibling tools. Context is clear but lacks exclusions or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
