earn_get_position_movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload: movement types (deposit, withdrawal, reward, fee), amounts, dates, status, and paginated metadata. No contradictions with 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?

Four tightly written sentences front-load the core action and return shape. Every sentence adds necessary context: operation, fields returned, pagination, prerequisite, and response format. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value structure and pagination metadata. The prerequisite workflow (earn_get_positions → this tool) is stated. It could mention ordering or default pagination values, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that position_id comes from earn_get_positions and by clarifying that limit and offset serve pagination, reinforcing the schema without redundancy.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('movement history of a specific Earn position'), clearly distinguishing it from general movement tools like earn_get_movements and from related summary tools. The inclusion of movement types and fields makes the scope explicit.

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 explicitly instructs to call earn_get_positions first to obtain the position ID, providing a clear usage sequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the 'specific position' scope implies differentiation from broader movement endpoints.

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