four02_reputation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does real work: it discloses append-only semantics, that entries are ordered newest-last, that each entry contains the writer contract, event type, and USDC value, and that the operation is read-only. It omits any mention of pagination/truncation behavior or auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then ordering and return shape. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the per-entry fields (writer contract, event type, USDC value) and ordering, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or whether the list can be truncated, a minor but real gap.

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%, so both agentId and limit are already documented, including that limit caps entries 'from the newest end'. The description adds only the ordering confirmation ('newest last'), which matches rather than extends the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: raw commerce-event history for a given ERC-8004 agentId from a named registry. The word 'Raw' implicitly separates it from the aggregate siblings four02_reputation_summary and four02_reputation_reliability, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'Raw ... history' framing suggests this is for unaggregated events versus the summary/reliability siblings, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternative is named. Adequate but a clear gap for a tool with three close siblings.

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