Get Interest History

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 discloses the need for POLONIEX_API_KEY and POLONIEX_API_SECRET, which is an important authentication requirement, and clarifies the scope as margin/lending. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any potential rate limits or side effects. The auth disclosure adds some value, but the description remains minimal.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch the account's interest history') before adding the scope and authentication details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This tool has five parameters with pagination semantics (from, limit, direction, startTime, endTime) and no output schema. The description only gives a one-line purpose and auth requirement, leaving the agent without enough context about the response structure or how to correctly combine pagination and time filters. Given the complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 all five parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'account's interest history' with the qualifier 'margin/lending'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trade history or account activity, as it is unambiguous about the focus on interest-related records.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. It only mentions the authentication requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. This is a clear gap given the many sibling data-fetching tools.

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