getEarnOrderHistory

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and open-world, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: default 7-day window, maximum 7-day range, and cursor-based pagination. It does not cover every edge case such as error behavior or output structure, but for a read-only query the annotations lower the burden and the added semantics are useful.

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 three short lines with the primary action first, followed by two high-value constraints. There is no filler, and every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 range and pagination notes are helpful, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 8 parameters and no output schema, the lack of explanation for the required category parameter, filter semantics, and response shape leaves clear 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 the 8 parameters. It only addresses cursor pagination and implicitly startTime/endTime via the 7-day range, while the required category enum and filter parameters like orderId, productId, and orderLinkId are left unexplained. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Query stake/redeem order history', so an agent can immediately identify the domain. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getOrderHistory, getEarnYieldHistory, or getAdvanceEarnOrder, but the stake/redeem scope is concrete enough to distinguish it at a high level.

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 bullets give clear context: this tool is for stake/redeem order history within a 7-day window and supports cursor-based pagination. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource and constraints are enough to infer the intended use.

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