getTokenSplashUserActivityParams

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing inclusion rules beyond structure: only registered activities, only those before announcement time, and deposit-only task types excluded. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about pagination, auth scope, or rate limits.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded, and the inclusion criteria and tradeTask semantics are organized into a separate hint block, which reads well. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds decision-relevant 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 read-only tool with no output schema and only two optional, undocumented parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: inclusion/exclusion rules and interpretation guidance for the returned tradeTask fields. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 carries the parameter burden. The hint explains the filtering role of projectId and activityCoin and, importantly, clarifies the tradeTask sub-fields (tradeToken as counted token, tradeUnit as denomination, tradeRequiredAmount/tradedAmount interpreted in tradeUnit) — a genuinely valuable semantic clarification not present in the schema. It does not document formats or max lengths, so it is not exhaustive.

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 ('Returns the authenticated user's participation and trade-task progress for Token Splash activities') and immediately scopes it to activities in the reward-distribution window. This cleanly separates it from the sibling getTokenSplashProjectList, which lists projects rather than the caller's own participation.

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 'AI agent can use this to...' sentence plus the hint ('Use this endpoint to fetch the current user's trade progress') give a clear when-to-use context, and filtering by projectId/activityCoin is suggested. It lacks an explicit when-not condition or a named alternative sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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