hl_user_staking_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the resource name, with no mention of read-only nature, time ranges, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

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 short and has no wasted words, but it's a fragment without a verb or structured information. It's concise but under-specified, making it an average score.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and no annotations, the description is still incomplete. It doesn't describe what the returned history includes (e.g., timestamps, amounts) and relies on an output schema that isn't visible. The description alone isn't sufficient.

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 schema has a single 'user' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't explain the parameter's format or semantics beyond implying the user is a delegator via 'delegatorRewards'. This adds minimal value.

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 'Staking reward history (delegatorRewards)' clearly identifies the resource and domain, distinguishing it from sibling staking tools like summary or delegations. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'list'), so it's not a full 5.

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 like hl_user_staking_summary or hl_delegator_history. The description simply names the resource without context on selection criteria.

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