Stamp Activity

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds concrete semantic detail: what sends and dispenses mean, the fact that dispenses include BTC paid, and that results are newest-first. It doesn't mention read-only safety explicitly, but 'history' implicitly indicates a non-mutating operation.

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 one tight sentence, front-loads the resource and action, then packs kind semantics and ordering into the remaining clauses. No filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only history endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and ordering. It omits explicit pagination semantics and sibling routing, but the output schema plus parameter defaults reduce the need for further explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'kind', but says nothing about 'stamp_id', 'page', or 'limit'. The names/defaults provide some structure, but the tool definition leaves most parameter semantics to inference.

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 resource ('stamp') and the operation ('transfer history'), and further differentiates sends from dispenses. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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?

By saying 'transfer history for a stamp' and defining kind='sends' vs kind='dispenses', the description gives clear context for when this tool fits: to inspect a stamp's transfer/send or dispense activity. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection among the listed siblings.

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