hl_user_non_funding_ledger_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists some entry types (deposits, transfers, liquidations) but does not describe output format, pagination, ordering, date range handling, or the boundaries of 'etc.', leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single short sentence, making it very concise. However, the vague 'etc.' reduces informativeness while still keeping it appropriately compact.

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 tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It only offers a high-level list of entry types, omitting details about parameter meanings, expected time range, and what exactly falls under 'etc.', making it incomplete for a moderately complex query 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (user, start_time_ms, end_time_ms). Even though the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 indicates the tool covers a non-funding ledger with entries like deposits, transfers, and liquidations. This distinguishes it from the sibling hl_user_funding_history by explicitly stating 'non-funding', though it lacks a direct verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'non-funding' label implies it excludes funding-related updates, but there is no mention of sibling tools, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the applicability largely inferred from the name.

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