get_v4_protocol_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose any limitations, such as data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. It only notes that no API key is needed, which is a minor access detail.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence providing the core purpose and the second adding a useful note. No extraneous words, efficiently front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics but could inform about the output format or data granularity. It is minimally sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with 'Time window' for the only parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get', the specific resource 'Aave V4 protocol-wide historical data', and the data contents 'total deposits and borrows over time in USD'. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on specific entities like reserves, users, or assets.

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 mentions 'No API key needed', which provides a prerequisite, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or indicate when to use this tool versus more specific alternatives like 'get_aave_reserve' or 'get_v4_user_borrows'.

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