cards_mint_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses request count, no auto-pagination, forwarding of filters without implied effectiveness, response shape variations (total/total_minted/mints), row and size limits, and refusal behavior for oversized records. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but not bloated; the main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes useful details (limits, behavior, response shape). It could be slightly trimmed but remains efficient for the amount of context it provides.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape, limits, truncation reporting, and refusal behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain what card_detail_id or foil mean or how they map to the upstream contract. It only states that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements, which is not helpful for understanding parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public mint history for one card detail and foil'), and distinguishes itself from the upstream by_date/by_date_edition forms, making its exact scope clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like cards_history or cards_get_details.

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?

Explicitly notes what this tool does not do (auto-fetch continuation pages) and that it binds to card_detail_id plus foil, implying when to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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