getLaunchpoolUserActivityLog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates the operation is a read-style retrieval ('Returns'), scopes data to the authenticated user, explains pagination, and discloses the hard constraint that startTime and endTime must be provided together as 13-digit ms timestamps. It does not mention rate limits or response shape, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains redundancy: the 'AI agent can use this' paragraph and the 'Agent hint' paragraph both restate that the endpoint retrieves staking operation history, and 'Filter by type' repeats the earlier filtering statement. Tighter editing would improve it.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation: it explains the operation type codes, the timestamp pairing requirement, and pagination intent. But with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the response structure, explain the status parameter values, or clarify how this endpoint differs from getLaunchpoolUserHistory. These gaps reduce completeness for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for type (0=pledges, 1=manual redemptions, 2=interest credits) and for startTime/endTime format and pairing. However, status values are not explained, and coin/stakeCoin semantics are only implied by 'Filter by coin', leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 returns the authenticated user's Launchpool staking operation history with pagination and filtering options. It identifies the resource and action specifically, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling getLaunchpoolUserHistory, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clear use cases: showing a user their staking history or investigating operation types like pledges and redemptions. It also gives practical filtering guidance, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over getLaunchpoolUserHistory or getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking, so exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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