price_historyDaily cheapest recorded price for one add-on across all its offers, plus min/max/current and whether it is at its lowest ever. Answers "has this ever been cheaper than X?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| days | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| as_of | Yes | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| max_eur_cents | Yes | ||
| min_eur_cents | Yes | ||
| is_lowest_ever | Yes | ||
| current_eur_cents | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: daily granularity, aggregation across offers, and the min/max/current and lowest-ever fields. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core data returned and ending with a memorable use-case question. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 and annotations cover safety, so the description explains the core result well. However, it omits how `days` shapes the data—for example, does 'lowest ever' span all time or just the requested window? This ambiguity could lead agents to misinterpret results.
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 for parameter meaning. It only implicitly ties slug to 'one add-on' and never mentions the `days` parameter, its default, range, or how it affects the history window. This is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters.
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 what the tool does: returns the daily cheapest recorded price for one add-on across all its offers, plus min/max/current and a lowest-ever flag. The specific resource and the mention of 'one add-on' distinguish it from siblings like compare_prices.
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 provides an explicit use-case question it answers ('has this ever been cheaper than X?'), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-add-on historical focus is clear enough.
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.