Fetch daily yield distribution records for a coin, with optional date range and limit filters to audit earnings.
Query user's daily yield distribution records.
Rate Limit: 10 req/s (UID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| endTime | 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds a rate limit of 10 req/s per UID, which is useful operational context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, cursor semantics, or how time range parameters are interpreted.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the rate limit as a secondary note. There is no fluff or redundancy, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage context.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent to call the tool reliably. It lacks information about required coin values, limit/cursor pagination, time range formats, and response shape, making it only minimally viable.
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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain coin, limit, cursor, startTime, or endTime. The phrase 'daily yield distribution records' only weakly hints at time-related parameters, providing essentially no meaningful parameter semantics.
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 states a specific action (Query) and a specific resource (user's daily yield distribution records), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTokenHourlyYield and getEarnHourlyYieldHistory by the 'daily' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with these siblings.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getTokenHourlyYield or getTokenHistoricalApr. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and similar yield-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.