getLaunchpoolUserHistory

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: each record represents one completed staking position, time filters apply to the staking period rather than creation date, and startTime/endTime must be 13-digit ms timestamps provided together. No contradiction with annotations.

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 is repetitive: 'completed positions with total reward' and 'historical positions with total reward' are restated across the first and third paragraphs. The 'AI agent' sentence and 'Agent hint' paragraph could be condensed without losing information.

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 historical-list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned, what filters exist, and the special time-parameter constraints. Minor gaps remain, such as pagination behavior and coin format expectations, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 must compensate. It names the filter dimensions (stakeCoin, rewardCoin, staking time range) and gives critical detail for startTime/endTime, but it does not explain current/pageSize pagination behavior or add meaning beyond parameter names for stakeCoin and rewardCoin.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource: the authenticated user's completed Launchpool staking positions, and clarifies it summarizes total reward per position. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking by emphasizing 'completed' and 'historical' positions.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the endpoint: to retrieve a user's historical/completed Launchpool positions and show past participation and rewards. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'completed' vs 'current' distinction implies the boundary clearly.

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