getBorrowHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: default 30-day window, the exact effects of supplying only startTime or only endTime, the 30-day maximum span, reverse chronological ordering, and the 2-year data limit. This meaningfully enriches what the annotations alone provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullet-style time-range rules that are easy to parse. Every sentence carries relevant information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The time-range semantics are covered thoroughly, and the read-only annotation reduces the need for safety warnings. Still, the tool accepts five optional parameters and has no output schema, but the description omits cursor pagination behavior and currency semantics, which are likely important for correct usage. Overall it is adequate for a simple default call but incomplete for more advanced invocations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially by explaining the startTime/endTime relationship and their optionality. However, cursor and currency parameters receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the agent is left without guidance for pagination and currency filtering.

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 operation—getting interest records—and adds useful behavioral details: reverse chronological sort and the 2-year data limit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like getCryptoLoanFlexibleBorrowHistory or queryBorrowLiability, and the phrase 'interest records' is slightly narrower than the tool name 'getBorrowHistory', but the intent is still clear.

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 detailed time-range rules, which help with invocation, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With a large sibling list containing similar borrow/history tools, missing explicit conditions or exclusions leaves the agent to guess.

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