Retrieves hourly yield calculation records (distributed yields) for a chosen coin, with optional time-range filters and pagination for reviewing payment history.
Query user's hourly yield calculation records (distributed yields).
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?
The annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a concrete operational detail, 'Rate Limit: 10 req/s (UID)', and clarifies that the records concern distributed yields. It stops short of describing pagination or time-range behavior.
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, and the purpose is front-loaded. The rate-limit sentence earns its place, though the 'distributed yields' parenthetical could be clearer.
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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it lacks pagination semantics, timestamp units, response expectations, and sibling differentiation. The rate limit is useful but does not make the tool self-contained.
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 says nothing about any parameter, so it does not add meaning beyond field names and constraints. The semantics of cursor pagination and startTime/endTime units remain undocumented, which is a serious gap for an agent trying to call this correctly.
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 verb and resource: 'Query user's hourly yield calculation records' and adds the parenthetical 'distributed yields' to clarify the domain. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like getEarnHourlyYieldHistory or getTokenDailyYield, so the agent must infer the differences from names or schemas.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; no alternative tool is named. The only clue is the resource being queried, which is insufficient for choosing among similarly named yield-history tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.