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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses intervals, lookback limit (180 days), and output (OHLCV). Does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but for a historical data tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, description explains return format (OHLCV), intervals, and lookback limit. Could mention pagination or aggregation, but sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., reiterates intervals and max days). Baseline 3 is 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?

Clearly states verb ('returns') and resource ('Historical OHLCV price candles for any fan token'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like tokenintel_realtime_prices by specifying historical nature. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'backtesting, charting, trend analysis, or building your own signals.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear. Minor room for improvement.

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