history / status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what 'local data coverage' means operationally, how staleness is reported, or whether the answer is scoped to a single chain.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core idea front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — nothing here earns its place beyond a restated title.

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 should at minimum hint at the return shape; it only gestures at it via 'checkpoints' and 'coverage'. For a one-parameter read-only diagnostic on a closed-world server, a slightly richer sentence would close the 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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter (chain_id) is never mentioned in the description at all. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer what the identifier refers to.

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 verb ('Describe') and an object ('event-index checkpoints and local data coverage'), so the intent is inferable, but the vocabulary is abstract and never explains concretely what is returned (e.g., indexing progress, lag, block range). It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors like history.events, observations.status, or rpc.get_health.

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 guidance on when to call this versus history.events or the health/status siblings, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess at the use case.

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