get_moltbook_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the cost ('$0.02 USDC via x402') and the return format ('array of hourly digest objects'), which are useful. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Since it is a read-only 'get' operation, side effects are minimal, but the description could mention that it is non-destructive. It adds some value but not comprehensive 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 compact: three sentences delivering purpose, use case, return type, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence carries information without redundancy. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only history tool with only two well-documented parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its cost. It lacks some details like the precise structure of the digest objects (e.g., sentiment scores or topic names), but since there is no output schema, the description is expected to provide only a high-level return format. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (hours and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of a 'configurable lookback window' aligns with the 'hours' parameter but does not add substantive new meaning beyond paraphrasing the schema. It adds marginal value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns 'historical Moltbook community digests' with an explicit 'lookback window', and describes the content as 'hourly sentiment analysis'. The word 'historical' and the contrast with 'Moltbook community digests' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_moltbook_digest (likely current) and get_moltbook_sample. This is a specific verb+resource that stands alone.

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 a direct use case: 'Use this to track how community sentiment, topics, and narratives have evolved over time.' This clearly implies the tool is for historical analysis and not for current snapshots. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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