ig_get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail—'offset-aware ISO-8601 datetime inputs'—but does not mention pagination behavior, the effect of the 'detailed' flag, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits. The lack of safety or side-effect disclosures is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states what the tool does and one key input requirement, earning its place. While more detail could be added, the structure is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks usage context, alternative tool guidance, and behavior details. The output schema covers return shape, but the description still leaves major contextual gaps for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the date/time inputs should be ISO-8601 with timezone offsets, covering from_date, to_date, and timezone implicitly. However, it says nothing about 'detailed' or 'page_size', leaving two of the five parameters semantically unexplained. Partial compensation is insufficient.

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 'Return active-account history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating what the tool does. It could better distinguish from sibling tools like ig_get_transactions or ig_get_historical_prices, but 'active-account history' implies a distinct concept, so it is sufficiently clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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