get_reserve_rate_history

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 that the tool returns timestamped snapshots with specific fields (liquidityRate, etc.) and explains the RAY unit conversion to APY. This gives sufficient transparency for a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with usage instructions and example queries. It is concise but packs necessary details. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but the current form is effective.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and unit conversion. It also provides a critical hint for obtaining the reserveId. The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra context beyond the schema, such as explaining how to obtain the reserveId from get_aave_reserves and the default/max for 'first'. This enhances understanding.

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 specifies the tool's purpose by providing example queries ('How has USDC supply rate changed over time?') and states it returns historical AAVE rates and TVL trends. It lists the specific fields returned, making it distinct from siblings like get_aave_reserve which returns current data.

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 gives explicit usage context ('Use this when the user asks about historical AAVE rates or TVL trends') and example queries. It also directs the user to get the reserve ID from get_aave_reserves, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for current rates.

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