getTokenSplashUserActivityParams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating the inclusion rules: only registered activities before announcement time, deposit-only tasks excluded, and the tradeTask object showing progress and estimated reward. It lacks explicit read-only/no-mutation and rate-limit details, but the disclosed constraints are meaningful.

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 front-loaded with an accurate purpose sentence and useful eligibility conditions. However, the 'AI agent can use this' sentence and the 'Agent hint' paragraph repeat essentially the same instruction, adding redundancy without much new information.

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 no-required-parameters read query with no output schema, this description gives enough context: what the response represents, which activities are included, and what the tradeTask object conveys. It could include return-envelope or error details, but those are not critical for an agent to select and invoke this endpoint.

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. The phrase 'Filter by projectId or activityCoin to narrow results' adds basic filter semantics, but it does not explain the format, source, or possible values of these parameters beyond their names.

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 and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's participation and trade-task progress for Token Splash activities.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getTokenSplashProjectList, which would focus on project-level data rather than user progress.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this endpoint to fetch the current user's trade progress and says to filter by projectId or activityCoin. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use this endpoint, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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