get_lending_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context about pagination, mainnet constraint, and the structure of returned records (actionType range, fields), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, and the second provides essential details about pagination and response fields.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return fields (actionType, actionName, token, amount, USD value, txId) and mentions pagination. However, it omits details on pagination behavior (e.g., default page size, max pages) and error conditions, but overall sufficient for a read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only lists record fields in the response, not parameter details.

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 it retrieves a user's V1 JustLend transaction history, enumerates specific action types (supply, withdraw, borrow, repay, collateral enable/disable), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_moolah_records by specifying the protocol and version.

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?

While it indicates the tool is Mainnet-only, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_moolah_records or get_liquidation_records. The description lacks when-not and alternative recommendations.

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