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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that values are sampled quotes rather than trades, that quiet/unavailable states and separate definition versions are included, and that pre-collection history does not exist. It does not cover auth needs, pagination, or error/empty 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what is read before constraints and caveats. Every sentence carries information; slight compression makes it feel terse, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers return semantics, data provenance limits, and the key window constraint. The main remaining gap is pagination/limit behavior and result shape, which the agent must infer.

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 compensate, and it does: it supplies the 31-day maximum window (absent from the schema), the UTC timestamp expectation for from/to, and the meaning of market/symbol. Only the 'limit' parameter (max 5000) is left undocumented in both places.

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: reads 'forward sampled pool states or perpetual midpoints' and explicitly distinguishes them from trades or cash-security OHLC. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_historical_data or get_onchain_quotes, leaving the agent to guess which history tool applies.

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 hard prerequisites (exact market, symbol, UTC from/to, 31-day cap) and a boundary ('no history is inferred before collection began'), which implies when the tool is valid. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance despite several overlapping history/quote siblings.

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