List current SpicyAPI key tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination must keep from/to fixed and pass nextCursor unchanged, cost is an exact USD string that is final only when settled, and defaults (7 days, limit 20). It stops short of describing result ordering or what happens if cursor/date filters are mismatched.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, routing, and exclusions, with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point that pagination, cost, and routing rules run together in one block, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers pagination, date bounds, limits, cost timing, and sibling routing. The gap is filter coverage: 'model' is undocumented and 'state' relies on the enum alone, so an agent cannot fully construct a filtered query from the definition.

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 carry parameter meaning; it documents to/from semantics (UTC, half-open [from,to), 7-day default, 92-day max), limit (default 20, max 100) and cursor handling. However, the 'model' filter is never explained and 'state' is only conveyed via the schema enum, leaving two of six parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover current-key task history with metadata only, without fetching each result'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from task_get (which fetches results) and usage_get (settled spending). An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules ('Use task_get only for selected results; use usage_get for settled spending including hidden tasks') plus negative guidance ('This is not a polling endpoint or a prerequisite to generation'). It also states pagination preconditions and date-range bounds, leaving little to inference.

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