getCryptoLoanCommonAdjustmentHistory

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

Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: private endpoint (auth required), rate limit of 5 requests per UID per time window, pagination with cursor, before/after LTV, and adjustment status. This is comprehensive, though it could mention error handling for invalid adjustId.

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 well-structured with sections (Features, Use Cases, Query Modes) and is concise, covering key points without unnecessary words. Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 read-only query tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains behavior, query modes, rate limits, and use cases. It is complete and leaves no major gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains each parameter's role: adjustId for specific adjustment (no pagination), collateralCurrency for filtering, and limit/cursor for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's raw types.

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 the tool queries historical collateral adjustment operations with pagination support. It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('collateral adjustment operations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getBorrowHistory and getCryptoLoanCommonCollateralData.

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 explicit use cases (review adjustments, track LTV changes, verify operations, audit) and query modes (by adjustId or currency). It implies when to use this tool for adjustment history but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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