getLiquidityMiningYieldRecords

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 mentions cursor-based pagination and a rate limit, but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, what side effects exist, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation implied by 'Query'.

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 very concise, two sentences, no fluff. However, for a tool with 6 parameters, more structure (e.g., listing key parameters) could be preferred.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the records contain, how to paginate, or the meaning of baseCoin/quoteCoin.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. The only hint is 'cursor-based pagination' which indirectly relates to cursor and limit, but not explicitly. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 yield claim records for Liquidity Mining positions, and mentions cursor-based pagination. It distinguishes 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other liquidity mining query tools. No exclusions or context are given.

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