koios_pool_owner_history

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 says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention required parameters, pagination, result ordering, or any other behavioral traits. The schema covers parameter syntax but not behavioral expectations.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain what owner history entails, how the data is structured, or any other details needed to fully understand the tool's behavior. The schema helps but is insufficient for comprehensive understanding.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, including the required _pool_bech32_ids and pagination options. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only indicating that the query targets 'specific pools'.

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 states the tool's function: fetching owner history for specified pools. The verb 'Get' and resource 'owner history' provide clear intent, and 'specific pools' signals that pool IDs must be provided, distinguishing it from other pool-related tools like pool_info or pool_history.

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 implies usage when you need owner history for given pools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferred from the resource name rather than explicit guidance.

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