Get vfat position value history

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by explaining the output is a chronological time series and spans migrations/rebalances. It does not contradict annotations, but it could disclose details like pagination or data availability limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence that is clear and free of redundant information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's output and scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (position value, token balances, in-range status) and the historical scope across migrations. It could be more detailed about time range handling, but the schema covers parameters and the description is sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add significant meaning to parameters, but it aligns with the high coverage baseline without needing to compensate.

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 a chronological time series of position value, normalized token balances, and in-range status across migrations and rebalances. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope differentiates it from siblings like get_vfat_position (current state) and get_vfat_position_performance (performance metrics).

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 implies usage for historical value tracking across migrations/rebalances, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives context but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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