Query yield claim records for liquidity mining positions, filter by coins and time range, and paginate results with a cursor.
Query yield claim records for Liquidity Mining positions with cursor-based pagination.
Rate Limit: 10 req/s (UID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| baseCoin | No | ||
| quoteCoin | No | ||
| startTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the rate limit (10 req/s UID) and the cursor-based pagination behavior. This is useful context beyond the schema, though it does not describe response contents or ordering.
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 two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the rate limit is clearly highlighted. Every part earns its place.
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?
With six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition lacks essential guidance on time units, cursor semantics, and expected return structure. It is a usable starting point but not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further inference.
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, but it only hints at the cursor parameter via 'cursor-based pagination.' There is no explanation of startTime/endTime units, cursor format, or how baseCoin and quoteCoin relate to the query.
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 ('Query'), a specific resource ('yield claim records for Liquidity Mining positions'), and a specific mechanism ('cursor-based pagination'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getLiquidityMiningLiquidationRecords or getLiquidityMiningOrders.
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 states what the tool does but never says when to choose it over alternatives or mentions any exclusion conditions. With many closely related getLiquidityMining* siblings, an explicit comparison or usage hint is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.