get_recent_supplies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (supplier, asset, raw amount, timestamp) and advises adjusting by decimals for human-readable values. It mentions automatic version handling. Missing explicit statement on ordering (presumably descending by time) and pagination limits are covered by the schema. Overall transparent enough for a read tool.

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 very concise: 3 sentences, with usage examples embedded in the first sentence. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and usage guidance, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (multiple chains, V2/V3 variants, optional filters), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, parameter handling, and return values. The absence of output schema is mitigated by describing return fields. Minor missing details: ordering of results (most recent first) and any rate limits or authentication needs, but these are not critical for a read action.

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 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant value beyond schema: it explains how to convert raw amounts using decimals, that V3 uses 'supply' and V2 uses 'deposit' automatically, and what the returned fields represent. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 recent deposit/supply activity on AAVE, with specific examples for different chains and assets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_borrows and get_aave_liquidations by focusing on supply events.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks about recent deposit/supply activity on AAVE.' It also explains automatic handling of V2 vs V3 chains. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for borrows or liquidations), though the context from sibling tools makes this implied.

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