Get historical price data for one or more tokens. Returns timestamped price points. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | Lookback period: 1h, 4h, 1d, 7d, 1M (default: 1d) | |
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated asset symbols (e.g., SOL,BTC,ETH) | |
| resolution | No | Interval between points: 5s, 1m, 5m, 1h, 1d (default: 5m) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'No authentication required', which is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the verb and resource. Every piece of information is necessary, no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return type ('timestamped price points') but lacks detail on format (e.g., arrays or objects, per-token or combined). Adequate for a simple tool with strong annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 'Get' and resource 'historical price data for one or more tokens', and mentions it returns 'timestamped price points'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on summaries, market caps, or single asset details.
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 usage for historical price data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_asset_summary_history or get_market_cap. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: asset details, summaries (current and historical), market cap, market summary, price history, surging/trending assets, and listing assets/market caps. No overlaps.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' for specific queries and 'list_' for enumerations. No mixing of conventions.
10 tools is well-scoped for a market data server, covering all essential read operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers all common market data needs: asset details, summaries, market cap, price history, trending/surging assets, and full listings. No critical gaps for a read-only data server.
