debank_get_user_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return structure (history_list, cate_dict, etc.) and parameter behavior, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It is transparent for a read operation.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: purpose line, Args, Returns, Examples. No wasted sentences. Front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

Given no annotations and presence of output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs, and examples comprehensively. Missing details on pagination limits or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. Every parameter (address, chain_id, token_id, start_time, page_count) is explained with type, default, and optionality. Examples clarify usage.

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 clearly states 'Get user's transaction history from DeBank.' with a specific verb and resource, and the examples differentiate from sibling tools by showing usage patterns for different filters.

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 description implies usage through parameter details but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives like debank_get_user_balance or debank_get_user_protocols. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation.

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