get_mining_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('array of completed mining rounds with results and earnings'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, with two clear sentences that state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on authentication, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like typical usage patterns or constraints.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('past mining rounds history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_round' by focusing on historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_mining_session' or 'get_rewards', which might also involve mining-related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active mining account, or compare it to siblings like 'get_current_round' for real-time data or 'get_rewards' for earnings details, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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