get_health_factor_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the purpose but does not disclose behavioral details like rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens when no history exists. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, adds a usefulness statement, and ends with concrete example queries. Slightly more structure could improve scanability.

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 lacks an explanation of the output format (e.g., array of objects with health factor and block number) since no output schema is provided. It also does not address error cases or edge conditions. Given the three simple parameters, it is moderately complete but could be richer.

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 are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., that 'first' controls number of snapshots). The baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 retrieves a user's health factor history over time, block by block. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health factor history'), and distinguishes itself from snapshot tools like get_user_risk_profile through its focus on historical trends.

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 explicit example queries ('How has this wallet's health factor changed?') and states it is useful for trend analysis and detecting deterioration. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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