Strata portfolio history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: data is 'stored' (not computed on the fly), 'genuine', and reported in 'exact USD micros', giving precision and authoritative-source information beyond the annotations.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, subject, and output precision with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description sufficiently covers the core behavior and return precision. It does not describe the temporal range parameter or output shape, but those are either in the schema or less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 carries the burden. It does not explain walletAddress or range, relying on the parameter names and enum to convey meaning. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('stored account-equity history'), with precision details ('exact USD micros'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like strata_portfolio, suggesting current snapshot versus historical record.

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?

Usage is implied through 'stored account-equity history' – the agent can infer it is the right tool for historical equity data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools (e.g., strata_portfolio for current equity).

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