koios_account_stake_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any potential side effects. For a query tool without annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, zero waste. Perfectly concise.

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 conveys the core purpose but lacks detail on pagination, return value shape, or edge cases. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read query. It doesn't explicitly state that results are paginated despite the schema including limit/offset, so there's a gap.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond linking 'stake accounts' to the required parameter. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'stake history' with detail 'active stake per epoch', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like koios_account_reward_history. It clearly states the scope (for given stake accounts), meeting the criteria for specific verb+resource+scope.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools like reward history or account info. The usage is only implied by the description itself, with no explicit when/where guidance.

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