Get Account Activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the prerequisite of POLONIEX_API_KEY and POLONIEX_API_SECRET, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, describe pagination behavior, or indicate the response format. 'Fetch' implies reading, but important behavioral traits are left to the schema.

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 sentence plus a requirement note, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise, contains no filler, and every phrase adds value: the activity types, optional filters, and environment prerequisite.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only gives a high-level summary. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how filters interact (e.g., startTime/endTime, from/direction), or the meaning of activityType codes beyond examples. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves notable gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 (account activity) and the verb (Fetch), and provides concrete examples (airdrops, rebates, staking, adjustments). It is clear enough to distinguish from many other get_* tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with similar tools like get_wallet_activity.

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 implies the tool is for fetching account activity records with optional filters, and it notes the API key requirement. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name and examples.

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