get_address_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only lists the information categories, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or how empty results are handled. The term 'Get' suggests read-only, but it's not explicit.

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 two sentences with no redundant information, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys the scope of data. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the purpose and data categories, but without an output schema, more detail on the response structure would be helpful. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves some ambiguity about the output format.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions that fully cover their meaning (address and limit per category). The tool description does not add extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 it retrieves all Lido activity for a specific address, listing specific categories (stETH balance, deposits, transfers, withdrawal requests). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_transfers or get_withdrawal_requests by offering a comprehensive single view.

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 this tool is for a complete overview of an address's Lido interactions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings, nor does it provide conditions like prerequisites or 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.