hl_delegator_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Delegate / undelegate history' and adds no behavioral context. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, what fields or time range are covered, or that it pertains to staking delegations.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It reads as a fragment and fails to convey enough information to be useful for tool selection or invocation.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context: no definition of what constitutes a delegation event, no mention of ordering or pagination, and no differentiation from sibling tools. For a one-parameter tool, this is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate for the 'user' parameter. It does not explain whether 'user' is a wallet address, username, or ID, or how the value should be formatted.

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 identifies the resource (delegate/undelegate history) but uses a noun phrase without an explicit verb, making the action implicit. It adds the clarification of both delegate and undelegate, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like hl_user_staking_delegations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_user_staking_delegations or hl_user_staking_summary. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over related staking history tools.

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