getHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only by saying 'Returns' and even names the subgraph data source, but it does not describe ordering, freshness, pagination, or any response-shape behavior. This is adequate for a simple query but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main return categories, and avoids redundant phrasing. The only minor issue is a slightly long enumeration, but every clause contributes useful 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview of return categories but does not define the response structure, ordering, or how 'active positions over time' relates to the user history. It is enough to select the tool but not fully enough to predict the exact result shape.

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 already documents both parameters fully. The description only restates the address behavior ('Pass an address to get user-specific history') without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('historical data from the Kaskad Protocol subgraph') plus enumerates concrete contents: liquidations, APY snapshots, transaction history, and active positions. It clearly signals a read/history-oriented tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from current-state siblings like getMarkets or getPosition.

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 implies usage context: use it when historical or user-specific data is needed, and it instructs to pass an address for user-specific history. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as getMarkets or getPosition for current data.

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