getLaunchpoolUserHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only/historical nature, that each record summarizes total reward per completed position, and the important startTime/endTime constraints: filter by staking period, require 13-digit ms timestamps, and must be provided together. It doesn't mention pagination details, but the core behavior is well 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 and adds focused detail in the agent hint. There is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the hint, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does well: it covers authentication scope, output semantics, and the non-obvious timestamp pairing requirement. It could still add pagination behavior or clarify all optional parameters, but a competent agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates for the riskiest parameters: startTime/endTime are clearly defined as staking-period filters with exact timestamp requirements, and stakeCoin/rewardCoin are identified as filter dimensions. current/pageSize are left to be inferred from names and schema defaults, but this is a minor gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's completed Launchpool staking positions, summarising total reward earned per position.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking and getLaunchpoolUserActivityLog by emphasizing completed/historical staking 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?

Provides clear context for use: 'AI agent can use this to show a user their past participation' and 'Agent hint: Use this endpoint to retrieve a user's historical Launchpool positions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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