jingswap_get_cycles_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that entries include settlement data if settled and cycle totals. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the history/get framing makes that clear. Minor gaps around ordering or response size remain.

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 core description is two front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to selecting or invoking this tool and slightly weakens 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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the returned entries at a high level, including settlement data and cycle totals, which is enough for correct invocation, though it could clarify ordering or whether entries are market-specific.

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%, and the single market parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention the market parameter or add further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get the full history of all auction cycles. It also specifies the scope from cycle 0 to the current cycle, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jingswap_get_cycle_state.

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 gives a clear usage context: analyzing historical auction performance and volume. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as jingswap_get_cycle_state for current state or jingswap_get_settlement for individual settlements, but the intended use is clear.

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