Export recorded spot execution records as CSV for downstream accounting and tax review.
[Capability: paid_ready; tier: pioneer_plus; API: /api/v1/agent/ledger; authority: /api/v1/agent/status] Export recorded spot execution records as CSV for downstream accounting review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| agentAddress | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the output format (CSV) and the record scope (spot executions); it does not say what fields the CSV contains, whether unlimited-scope exports are throttled, or how large ranges behave.
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 single functional sentence is tight and front-loaded after the prefix. However, the leading bracketed metadata string (capability/tier/API paths) consumes a third of the text with routing tags that do not help an agent decide whether or how to call the tool.
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?
Annotations cover safety and there is no output schema to explain, so the remaining burden is parameter semantics and export scope, neither of which is addressed. Adequate to know it is a safe CSV export, but not sufficient to call it correctly with dates or to predict the export's contents.
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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The required agentAddress, the meaning of start/end (format, inclusivity, behavior when omitted) are left entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at date syntax and default scope.
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 and resource: export recorded spot execution records as CSV, with a stated audience (accounting review). That is enough to tell it apart from ledger_realized_pnl (which computes PnL) and get_receipt (single record), though no sibling is ever named explicitly.
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 phrase 'for downstream accounting review' implies the usage context, and the name suggests it is a reporting/export path rather than a computation path. There is no explicit when-to-use versus ledger_realized_pnl or get_receipt, and no guidance on when to supply a date range versus leaving start/end empty.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.