getTokenHistoricalApr

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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and open-world, and the description adds operational context by stating the rate limit (50 req/s IP) and that no authentication is required. This goes beyond the structured annotations and is directly useful for invocation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two terse, useful operational notes. There is no filler, though the range semantics could have been added without much length.

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 simple two-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the core purpose, rate limit, and auth status are covered. However, the required range parameter is left unexplained and no return format is indicated, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent.

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 needed to explain the parameters. It does not clarify what the range enum values ('1', '2', '3') represent or how coin relates to the product, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning of a required parameter.

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 resource ('product's historical APR data'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar historical-data siblings such as getEarnAprHistory or getTokenHourlyYield, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what scenarios it serves. Given many sibling tools with overlapping APR/yield/history semantics, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to infer usage from the name.

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