get_moolah_vault_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds the return fields (currentSupplyUsd, supplyBaseApy, supplyMiningApy, historyRecords) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, time range, or rate limits. It adds minimal value 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?

The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. It efficiently states the purpose, lists return fields, and provides input sourcing guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 tool has no output schema and returns a structured historyRecords array, yet the description does not explain the array's contents (e.g., fields, time format). The optional network parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description. While safety is annotated, return structure details are incomplete for a data retrieval 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds further meaning by specifying that vaultAddress should come from get_moolah_vaults or chains.ts, which is valuable context beyond the schema. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a 'time series of a V2 Moolah vault's APY, TVL, and supply mining data,' listing specific fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_moolah_history (likely for markets) and get_moolah_vault (single snapshot) by specifying 'time series' and the exact return data.

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 clear guidance on where to obtain the vaultAddress (from get_moolah_vaults or chains.ts), which is a key input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_moolah_vault_mining_apy for only APY data. The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusion criteria.

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