Retrieve historical yield records for FlexibleSaving and OnChain Earn products, with filters for product ID, time range, and pagination to analyze past earnings.
Query yield history. Supports FlexibleSaving and OnChain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| productId | No | ||
| startTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond those. It does not mention pagination, ordering, time-range semantics, response shape, or any rate-limit/auth considerations, so the description itself carries little transparency value.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It wastes no words, though the second sentence is largely redundant with the category enum in the schema.
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 six-parameter read query with no output schema and many sibling history tools, this description is too incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, parameter meanings, or how it differs from getEarnHourlyYieldHistory/getEarnAprHistory, so an agent cannot confidently build correct queries beyond the required category.
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%, and the only parameter touched by the description is category, restating the enum values already present in the schema. No meaning is added for cursor, limit, startTime, endTime, or productId, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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?
States a clear action and resource ('Query yield history') and identifies the two supported categories. However, it does not differentiate this from closely named siblings such as getEarnHourlyYieldHistory, getEarnAprHistory, or getHoldToEarnYieldHistory, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative yield/history tools. The description implies usage for yield history but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria relative to its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.