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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate it. It does add one genuinely new behavioral fact — the *_pts fields are legacy aliases slated for removal in 0.7.0 — which helps an agent avoid coupling to deprecated output, but it omits any rate-limit, caching, or scope behavior.

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 tight sentences with the field list front-loaded and a useful unit clarification in parentheses. The trailing legacy-field sentence is slightly tangential but short and does carry migration value.

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 enumerating return fields is more redundant than necessary, and parameters and safety are covered by the schema and annotations respectively. The remaining gap is the missing cross-reference to the sibling history tools, which prevents a full 5.

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 100%, so ref, points, and lookback (including the 2-60 range and enum values) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 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 conveys a specific verb+resource: the recent price path of one market, with units in cents/percent. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling history/market readers (get_history, get_perp_history, get_market), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. With siblings like get_history and get_perp_history, the description gives no cue for choosing get_price_history over them, so the agent must guess from names alone.

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