ucai_query_historical_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the monetary cost per query but omits other important traits such as whether it's read-only (though 'Query' implies it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It also doesn't describe the response format or pagination behavior.

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 two sentences and directly states the tool's purpose and pricing. It is concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. It could be longer to include more context, but as written it is efficient.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters including a nested eventFilter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to use block ranges, the event filter, or what the response contains. It also lacks usage guidelines. The description is too sparse for a complex tool with multiple configuration options.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only hinting at three of the five dataType values. It does not explain eventFilter, block ranges, or network parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 queries historical data for a smart contract, listing specific data types (transactions, event logs, state changes). It uses an active verb and specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_contract_logs or get_erc20_transfers, though its scope is broader.

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 alternative tools. It neither mentions prerequisites nor exclusions. The description only covers what the tool does and the price, not when to invoke it.

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