get_utxo_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does explain outputs (token amounts and USD values per cohort date) and hints at the analytical value, but it does not disclose any operational caveats such as parameter interactions, data granularity, or possible rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding a valuable use-case context. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a conceptual idea of the return data (token amounts and USD values per cohort) but does not explain how the parameters interact or what the response structure looks like. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to construct a correct invocation, especially around the 'days' parameter and the date parameters.

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 input schema describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; notably, the unusual 'days' parameter (described as 'Number of records to return') is not clarified, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 ('Get') and resource ('UTXO set breakdown by age cohort'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics tools by emphasizing age-cohort analysis and USD values, making its unique scope evident.

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 a clear use case: analyzing coin dormancy and accumulation patterns, and notes a practical signal (dormant supply movement often precedes price action). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to use it.

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