Get asset activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: result ordering (oldest to newest) and the indexing scope constraint. It does not mention pagination behavior, though the page/limit params imply it.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, use case second, exclusions third. Front-loaded and no filler.

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 and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly self-sufficient for selection and invocation. The one gap is pagination/result-size behavior for a list tool with page/limit, which is left entirely to convention.

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 only 33% (only assetId is described, as 'Base58 Solana address'), and page/limit are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does add meaning to assetId by defining the asset class as a COMPRESSED NFT / Bubblegum tree asset, which is more than the schema gives, but it does not compensate for the undocumented pagination params.

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 (get) and resource (activity) scoped precisely to COMPRESSED NFTs / Bubblegum tree assets, and explicitly names what it is not (fungible mints, standard NFTs). An agent can distinguish it from get_transaction_history and get_transfers without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('reconstruct a cNFT's mint-and-sale chain of custody') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives ('Fungible mints and standard NFTs are not indexed here — use get_transaction_history or get_transfers for those'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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