Get investment history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it requires View permission, returns paginated results, and has a rate-limit weight of 1. It does not describe response fields or pagination mechanics.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details, then an example. It is concise overall, though the first line simply repeats the tool title, which is redundant.

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 read-only, paginated history endpoint with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, permission requirement, pagination, and an example request. It is largely complete, though it omits return field details and sibling differentiation.

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 the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description's example request illustrates parameter formatting in a URL, but it adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns paginated Dual Investment history for the authenticated user.' This is clear, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pionex_earn_dual_get_invests', so an agent could confuse the two.

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 implied by 'Returns paginated Dual Investment history' and it adds a prerequisite ('Requires View permission'), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the similarly named 'get_invests' sibling is not mentioned.

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