ConvertHistoryQuery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's an OpenAPI interface with API key authentication, ACL permission, and rate limit. However, it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid parameters. The term 'confirmed' is not elaborated.

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 short and front-loaded, with bullet points for additional info. Every sentence adds value. However, the lack of parameter details could be structured better.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers auth and rate limits but fails to explain return values or param details. With many siblings, more contextual differentiation would help.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It only explains accountType as 'comma-separated', but does not describe index or limit parameters. No examples or value constraints are given. This leaves agents guessing about parameter usage.

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 clearly states it queries confirmed conversion records, with verb and resource. It mentions support for multiple wallet types and comma-separated accountType. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like SmallAssetConvert, the name and description imply a read-only historical query, which sets it apart from execution tools.

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 mentions authentication and rate limits but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., CoinConvertLimitQuery, ConvertExecute). There are no exclusions or context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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