Get one agent's history

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the API key requirement and the env var name, plus the shape of what comes back (dated registry events and claims). It does not discuss pagination or result limits.

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?

Two tight sentences: the data returned is front-loaded, the auth prerequisite follows. No filler, and every clause carries information.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the data content and the auth hurdle, which is what an agent needs to call it successfully. Minor gaps are pagination/volume expectations for a presumably long history.

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% – id, chain, and registry all carry their own descriptions, including the Solana-only caveat for registry. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource and scope: one agent's registry events (mint, transfers, profile link updates) plus the public claim history, each dated. This clearly separates it from get_agent or search_agents in spirit, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'history' and by the enumerated event types, and the auth requirement is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to get_agent/search_agents as alternatives.

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