koios_pool_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets historical performance data', but does not disclose pagination behavior (though the schema has limit/offset), epoch filtering, or what specific metrics are returned. There is no mention of response format or any caveats.

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, clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly 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?

Given the 6-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'historical performance data' entails, whether it returns one row per epoch, or how pagination/filtering works. The schema covers parameters but the tool's behavior and return shape remain ambiguous.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not compensate for any gaps because none exist in the schema.

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 'Get historical performance data for a specific pool' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (historical performance data for a specific pool). It is distinct enough from siblings like koios_pool_info, but does not explicitly mention what 'performance' includes or differentiate itself from similar pool history tools.

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 koios_pool_info, koios_pool_stake_snapshot, or koios_pool_blocks. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.

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