jingswap_get_user_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real trait: data is 'indexed from on-chain contract events', warning that results may lag chain state. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or what an empty history looks like — meaningful gaps for a history endpoint.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; nothing is buried. The trailing tip is tangential to invoking this tool, keeping it just below a top score.

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 read-only, 2-parameter query with no output schema, the description should hint at the shape and volume of the returned event list. It names the event categories but leaves result structure, ordering, and pagination unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (address, market with its two allowed values) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics about the market selector or address format, so the baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get a user's auction activity history') and enumerates the event types returned (deposits, cancellations, fills, settlements), which lets an agent distinguish it from the single-purpose sibling jingswap_get_user_deposit. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus jingswap_get_user_deposit, jingswap_get_cycle_state, or jingswap_get_settlement, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The closing 'earning_opportunities' tip is a cross-sell, not usage guidance for this tool.

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