get_moolah_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool works on both mainnet and nile, and implies paginated behavior. This adds some context beyond annotations but does not discuss rate limits, result ordering, or empty result behavior, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose and event types. The second sentence provides a critical sibling distinction. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does not describe the return format or fields of the transaction records. The parameter list is fully covered by the schema, but the agent receives no information about what data is returned per record. This gap reduces completeness. A score of 3 is appropriate for a simple list tool with good annotations.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions in the JSON schema. The description mentions 'paginated' which aligns with pageNo and pageSize, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: retrieving a user's paginated V2 Moolah transaction history for specific event types. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_moolah_history by contrasting its full record list vs. position curves with a preview, which helps the agent select the correct tool.

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 provides direct usage guidance by comparing to get_moolah_history, stating when to use this tool (full paginated records) and when to use the alternative (position curves + preview). It also mentions compatibility with mainnet and nile. However, it does not address other potentially related tools like get_lending_records or get_liquidation_records, slightly limiting completeness.

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