get_historical_volumes

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

The description mentions the return format (table with columns), which adds basic behavioral context beyond the schema, but lacks details on data range, pagination, rate limits, or edge cases. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but falls short of fully transparent disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: one main sentence stating purpose, followed by two bullet points detailing parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers parameter semantics and output columns adequately. However, it could be improved by mentioning data range availability (e.g., all-time or limited period) and ordering of results. The output schema helps, but missing this context slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: chain specifies the source via list_chains and includes the special value 'all', and bridge_id is sourced from list_bridges. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 fetches historical volumes for a bridge, chain, or specific bridge on a chain, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_day_stats (daily stats) and get_transactions (transaction details) by focusing on volume data and offering flexible filtering.

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 implies usage when historical volume data is needed for a bridge or chain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives. The context from sibling names is not leveraged in the description.

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