getCryptoLoanFlexibleBorrowHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination support, rate limit of 5 requests per UID, and that the response includes borrow details and status. However, it does not explain cursor semantics, result ordering, or any open-world behavior associated with openWorldHint.

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 and well structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a short bulleted feature list. Every line adds useful information, including the rate limit, with no redundant filler.

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, the description covers the essential filters, pagination, output content, and rate limit. However, since there is no output schema, the vague 'borrow details and status' is the only return-value guidance, and pagination mechanics plus parameter combination rules remain unspecified. It is adequate but has clear informational gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It partially compensates by mapping 'order ID or currency' to orderId and loanCurrency, and 'pagination support' to limit and cursor. But it does not clarify value formats, constraints, maximum limits, or whether at least one filter must be provided.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query historical flexible borrow records with pagination.' It also clarifies the main filtering dimensions (order ID or currency), which helps distinguish it from repayment-history or ongoing-position siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like getCryptoLoanFlexibleRepaymentHistory or getCryptoLoanFlexibleOngoingCoin.

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 implies the appropriate use case—retrieving historical flexible borrow records with optional order ID/currency filters and pagination—but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives among the many related sibling tools, and the rate-limit note is the only operational caveat provided.

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