q402_oft_history

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

With no annotations present, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool is a read-only guidance stub, returns implemented:false intentionally, requires owner-sig auth, and will not return actual history. It even explains the 'implemented:false' design decision to prevent LLM confusion, going beyond basic 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 longer than a simple stub, but every sentence carries necessary information: status, auth, return behavior, future shape, and the sibling alternative. The front-loaded 'READ-ONLY GUIDANCE TOOL' immediately sets expectations, though the prose could be slightly tighter.

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 an intentionally non-implemented tool, the description covers all critical context: current behavior, auth constraints, future return schema, and the correct sibling for USDC/CCIP. It does not specify the exact dashboard pointer shape, but that is not essential for a guidance stub and the description is otherwise complete.

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 already has 100% description coverage for the single optional ownerAddress parameter, including format and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it doesn't go beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is sufficient, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only guidance stub for USDT0 OFT bridge history, explicitly stating it is 'not yet wired' and reports implemented:false with a dashboard pointer. It distinguishes itself from q402_bridge_history by directing USDC/CCIP users there, so the purpose is both specific and differentiated.

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?

It provides clear context on when not to rely on it (not yet wired), notes the auth requirement (owner-sig, dashboard-bound), and gives an explicit alternative for USDC/CCIP ('use q402_bridge_history'). It doesn't explicitly state 'use this tool only for status discovery,' but that is strongly implied by the guidance-tool framing.

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