get_fee_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the fee history includes (e.g., timestamps, values), how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like pagination. For a tool that likely returns historical data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with the 'chainId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of chain IDs or how the history is structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('fee update history for a specific chain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_fees' or 'get_chains', which could provide similar or related fee information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_fees' or 'get_chains'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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