madeonsol_coordination_history

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

Annotations clearly indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'ULTRA only' access constraint and lists returned fields, providing useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information: the data type (history), returned fields, and access level. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the return fields (token, score, KOL count, timing) and the access restriction. However, it does not specify ordering (e.g., most recent first) or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. For a simple read tool, this is nearly 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?

All three parameters (limit, since, min_score) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns past coordination alert fires with specific fields (token, score, KOL count, timing) and notes it is 'ULTRA only'. This differentiates from siblings like coordination_alerts_list and coordination_alerts_get, which likely focus on current alerts. However, using a more active verb like 'Retrieve' would improve clarity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'ULTRA only' indicates an access restriction, there is no comparison to siblings such as madeonsol_coordination_alerts_list or madeonsol_coordination_alerts_get to help the agent decide which tool to invoke.

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