Show sci-bot token history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that payment details are not exposed and implies a read-only report operation, but it does not describe ordering, time range, or whether the balance is current vs. historical.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important boundary about payment details.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, clear purpose, and no output schema. The description plus the schema's parameter documentation are enough for an agent to call it correctly, though a bit more detail about the returned entries would round it out.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema already documents meaning and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Reports') and names a clear resource ('token balance and recent balance movements'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which are mostly about questions, conversations, and account functions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scibot_account or scibot_settings. It does not state exclusions or conditions; an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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