get_collateral_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the scope (per chain) and temporal granularity (daily), which is useful, but it doesn't describe return format, units, or any behavioral caveats. Still, for a zero-parameter read-only getter, this is adequate.

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 just two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. It immediately states the core output and then adds a clarifying scope distinction, with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (daily total collateral per chain) and clarifies its scope. It could mention time range or units, but it is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and no parameter-related ambiguity exists.

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 that the tool returns a daily time series of total collateral value per chain, and explicitly distinguishes it from per-ilk vault history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_chain_collateral_history, which could be a close alternative.

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 its use for protocol-wide, chain-level collateral history and explicitly states what it is not (per-ilk vault history), giving some context. But it doesn't mention when to use this tool over siblings or provide explicit alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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