get_new_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 cover behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets' history, implying a read operation, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no records exist.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose first then listing args. It avoids unnecessary words, but the args section could be integrated more naturally.

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 tool retrieving history with no output schema, the description lacks details on result structure, ordering, pagination, or the meaning of 'new'. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

The description adds minimal meaning to the two parameters: 'collateral_currency' for filtering and 'limit' for record count, with defaults clarified. However, given 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate with details like allowed values or format.

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 'new crypto loan collateral adjustment history', identifying a specific resource. While it distinguishes from sibling 'get_crypto_loan_adjustment_history' by adding 'new', it does not explicitly differentiate them, missing the top score.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_crypto_loan_adjustment_history'. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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