ig_get_activity

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 the date format requirement but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what 'active-account history' includes, or any pagination 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 two sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds a necessary formatting detail.

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 is minimal for a 4-parameter tool. It omits behavioral context such as read-only nature, pagination, and the precise scope of 'activity'. While an output schema exists, the description does not bridge the gap between purpose and usage.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description adds a critical constraint that dates must use IG's ISO-8601 UTC format, which clarifies the two required parameters. However, it does not explain 'detailed' or 'page_size' meanings, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 ('Return') and resource ('active-account history'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It is distinguishable from transaction-focused siblings, though 'activity' vs 'transactions' could overlap.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ig_get_transactions. The date format note is about parameter usage, not tool selection.

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