get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior like ordering, pagination, or data freshness. It only states that activity is 'recent' and lists types, but fails to mention that results are ordered chronologically, whether a cursor exists, or any rate limits. The return format is entirely unspecified.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the main purpose and listing key event types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, ordering, or how to interpret the 'all' option beyond what is in the schema. A tool fetching activity should at least mention it returns a list of event objects.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for both event_type and limit. The enum values and use of 'all' are already detailed in the schema.

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 recent activity on Predict.fun and lists specific event types (trades, splits, merges, etc.). It effectively communicates the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, which are distinct enough.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_subgraph or other get_* tools. No context on selecting event types is provided beyond what appears in the schema, but the description itself does not offer usage heuristics.

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