Risk history of a Stellar asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 90-day maximum window, the distinction between direct readings and reconstructions, that trades-implied is a lower bound, and that band changes are summarised rather than returned raw.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage conditions, then source semantics. The named USTRY example costs a little space but illustrates the bounds-omitted rule.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description carries the burden well: it names the returned dimensions, the windowing rule, the source taxonomy, and the summarisation behavior. Return shape/pagination details are the only notable gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds value the schema lacks: the hard 'at most 90 days apart' constraint on from/to, and the operational consequence of the source enum (reconstructions only reachable without bounds).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('a time series of band, flags, depth and max safe collateral for one asset') scoped to ONE data source. The 'time series' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the snapshot sibling get_asset_risk without 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?

Clearly states the two usage modes: supply from and to for a windowed request, or omit both to list every stored reading. It also names the non-obvious condition that reconstructions like the USTRY series are reachable only with bounds omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-to-use conditions are concrete.

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