get_crypto_loan_adjustment_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a read operation (get history) and mentions default limit. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether it's safe (non-destructive). This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 very short and to the point, with an args listing. It avoids unnecessary words but sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should elaborate on what the history contains (e.g., timestamps, LTV changes). It does not explain the response structure, ordering, or edge cases like empty history. The tool is simple but the description lacks essential context.

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%, so the description adds value by explaining both parameters ('filter by collateral currency' and 'number of records with default 50'). However, it lacks format details (e.g., currency code ISO) and does not cover all potential values.

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 clearly states it retrieves crypto loan LTV adjustment history, distinguishing it from mutation tools like crypto_loan_adjust_ltv. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling get_new_crypto_loan_adjustment_history, which may cause confusion.

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?

The description mentions optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No explicit when-not or comparison with similar history tools.

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