get_dex_fleet_status_over_time

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only restates the resource and temporal aspect. It does not disclose return format, time range, aggregation, or any required context beyond account_id. It adds little beyond what the tool name already communicates.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 only one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits important context such as what 'status over time' means, what data points are returned, and how the result relates to the many sibling DEX tools. An agent would need external documentation to understand the response.

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 covers the only parameter, account_id, with a description 'The account ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, such as how account_id relates to DEX fleet data, but the schema already documents it adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves DEX fleet status over time. 'Over time' implies a historical time-series view, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool get_dex_fleet_status_live. However, it does not clarify what 'fleet status' contains or how it is aggregated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 get_dex_fleet_status_live or list_dex_fleet_status_devices. The phrase 'over time' weakly implies historical usage, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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