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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific time windows for price snapshots and explains the difference between return_total_pct and return_ko_to_24h_pct, noting that the former can differ in sign from a kickoff-anchored return. This is good behavioral insight, though it does not cover side effects, authorization, or rate limits.

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 reasonably concise, comprising four sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. It uses helpful terminology like 'WINDOWS' and references a semantics block. The inclusion of competition and venue filters that are not present in the schema adds slight noise.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by detailing the two return metrics and referencing a 'semantics' block in the response. However, it does not describe the overall response structure (e.g., array of matches, fields), and there are no annotations. The completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the context of the return metrics and the relationship between the time windows, which goes beyond the basic schema descriptions. However, it erroneously mentions competition and venue filters that are not in the schema, slightly detracting from accuracy.

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 'Historical match price impact data for a fan token' and specifies the verb 'Returns' with concrete time snapshots. However, it mentions filters for competition and venue that are not in the input schema, which is slightly misleading. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools but is specific enough.

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 includes 'Use for backtesting sports-driven strategies', which implies an intended use case, but it lacks guidance on when not to use or how this tool compares to alternatives like tokenintel_match_event_replay or tokenintel_match_odds. No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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