Auto-Action History

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

No annotations provided, but description indicates read-only behavior ('View execution history'), lists output fields, and notes authentication requirement. Lacks mention of pagination or error cases but sufficient for a read operation.

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: first defines purpose and scope, second lists output and requirement. No redundant words, efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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?

No output schema, but description explicitly mentions returned fields (status, amounts, hashes, timestamps), authentication, and pool scope. Lacks detail on default behavior for omitted poolAddress but schema covers that. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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%, and description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 it views execution history of automatic actions for a pool, listing specific action types and output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform manual actions or configuration.

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?

States 'Requires API key' and implies use for pool's auto-action history. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and it's the only tool for this specific purpose among siblings.

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