Get vfat position actions

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds useful detail about the content (lifecycle actions) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like pagination, ordering, or error cases. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and includes a concise list of included action types. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid summary of what the tool returns but does not specify the return structure (e.g., array vs object, grouping format) or any default behavior for time filters. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 transaction-grouped lifecycle actions for a single vfat/Sickle position, listing specific action types (deposits, rebalances, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vfat_position_value_history or get_vfat_portfolio_summary.

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 clear context that this tool is for a single NFT position's actions, implying use when detailed transaction history is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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