getTokenSplashUserActivityParams

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: activities are filtered to registered, pre-announcement, in-window entries; deposit-only tasks are excluded; and the tradeTask object is described as showing traded amount, requirement, and estimated reward. This is substantial behavioral disclosure for a read-only endpoint.

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 the main behavior, but it repeats the use case in the 'AI agent can use' sentence and the 'Agent hint' paragraph. The hint also partially restates the opening line. The information is valuable, but the redundancy could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does cover the key tradeTask fields and activity inclusion rules. It is enough for an agent to invoke the tool with no parameters or with filters and interpret the response, though an exact response shape is not specified.

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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by saying 'Filter by projectId or activityCoin to narrow results,' giving both parameters a clear semantic role. It does not specify value formats or whether the filters combine, but for optional simple string filters it is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's participation and trade-task progress for Token Splash activities.' It also clarifies scope with inclusion/exclusion conditions (registered, in reward-distribution window, not yet announced, excluding deposit-only types), making it clearly distinct from related list endpoints like getTokenSplashProjectList.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'AI agent can use this to show a user their current trading progress and estimated reward' and 'Use this endpoint to fetch the current user's trade progress.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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