topvisor_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return type ('keywords[] with positionsData'), but fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. With 15 parameters, much behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, a key constraint, and return type. No extraneous information, well 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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'position history', the structure of positionsData, or how optional parameters like competitors_ids or fields affect results. The description leaves the agent underinformed.

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 schema description coverage is 33%, and the description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'dates' vs 'date1+date2'. However, many parameters (e.g., fields, competitors_ids, type_range) are not explained in the description, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 it retrieves position history for a project and regions, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'position history'. However, among many sibling tools like topvisor_get_snapshots and topvisor_get_summary, it does not differentiate itself, missing an opportunity to clarify unique functionality.

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 a usage constraint: 'Requires either dates array OR both date1 and date2.' This gives context on required parameters but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., topvisor_get_snapshots), and no mention of when not to use it.

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