updown_my_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output includes totals, win/loss tallies, and arrays of active and claimable bets. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any rate limits. It adequately describes the return structure but lacks safety context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Aggregate' and lists key output elements. No wasteful words.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return structure. It could optionally mention if there is pagination or a limit on rounds, but for a summary tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivial. The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool aggregates across all assets and timeframes, which is not evident from the empty schema.

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 aggregates a summary of UPDOWN bets/claims for the user's wallet across multiple assets and timeframes, including specific output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like updown_get_user_bet which likely returns a single bet.

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 this tool is for a broad history view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like updown_get_user_bet or updown_claim. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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