getHoldToEarnYieldHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the need for Earn permission, sort order (newest first), and cursor-based pagination with clear usage steps. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or effects of invalid parameters.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loads purpose and permission. It is structured with clear sections for permissions, sorting, and pagination, though some details could be better organized.

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?

While the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers essential aspects (purpose, permission, sort, pagination) but omits parameter descriptions for timeStart, timeEnd, and limit, and does not hint at response structure.

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 description only explains the cursor parameter. timeStart, timeEnd, and limit are not described at all, leaving their meaning and expected format ambiguous.

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 personal yield distribution history specifically for Hold-to-Earn products, differentiating it from siblings like getEarnYieldHistory which may cover broader earn products. The verb 'Query' and resource are explicit.

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 mentions the required Earn permission and provides pagination instructions, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. The context implies it's for Hold-to-Earn products only.

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