get_ftso_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that the data comes from the public Flare DA layer, that no external indexer is required, and that each point is optionally Merkle-verified against the on-chain Relay root. These are meaningful behavioral traits not visible in the schema. It stops short of stating response formatting or recency bounds, but for a read-only getter this is solid transparency.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The main action and key differentiator are front-loaded, and the optional Merkle verification detail is placed in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description tells the agent what the tool returns, where it gets data, and how verification works, so it is invocable with the provided schema. However, there is no output schema and no description of what each history point contains, how far back 'recent' goes, or how rounds maps to returned records. Given the FTSO domain complexity and the number of sibling tools, the description is usable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'by name or bytes21 id' clarifies feed_id, and 'optionally Merkle-verified' clarifies verify. However, rounds is not explained beyond its name and schema defaults, and network is left entirely to the enum. The description adds value but leaves a real semantic gap around the rounds parameter.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get recent FTSO Scaling anchor-feed history for a feed (by name or bytes21 id).' It also names the data source and key capability, so an agent knows what the tool returns and where the data comes from. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_ftso_anchor_feed or get_ftso_feed, but the word 'history' and the reference to the public DA layer distinguish it enough for a 4.

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 phrase 'no external indexer needed' and 'from the public Flare Data Availability layer' gives useful context about when this direct DA-layer route is appropriate. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated, so it earns a 3.

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