history / events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful hint that results come from a local index (implying possible lag or incompleteness versus chain head), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or freshness.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than conciseness; the space saved is space the agent needed.

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, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations explaining data semantics, the description should say what an event record looks like and how results are bounded. It leaves the agent unable to predict the return shape or pagination behavior.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. 'swap, pool and liquidity events' loosely gestures at the undocumented `kind` string, but `pool`, `limit`, `chain_id`, and `since_block` get no semantics, formats, or defaults explained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb (Query) and a specific resource (locally indexed Vault swap, pool and liquidity events), which is far more informative than the bare name history.events. It also hints at the local-index scope, which separates it from a live RPC/observation tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 statement of when to use this versus history.status, watch.poll, or observations.status, all of which plausibly return event-like data. The only guidance is implicit in the words 'locally indexed', leaving the agent to guess.

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