get_adl_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that credentials are required and the operation is a read ('Get'), but it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what events exactly appear. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the critical auth requirement. There is no redundant detail or filler.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, scope, and credential requirement. It could mention return format or ordering, but the phrase 'ADL events' makes the expected output reasonably clear.

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 description does not need to explain parameter formats. It adds minimal context by clarifying that the address refers to the account whose ADL events are fetched, but this is largely inferable from the tool name and purpose.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'auto-deleveraging (ADL) events', scoped to 'a given account'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_market_adl_events, which is market-level ADL data.

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 supplies clear context: this is for account-level ADL history and requires API credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the account-level scope implies when it should be used versus the market-level sibling.

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