get_price_historyReturn the recorded prices for one tracking (tracking_id): current, first, lowest and highest price, percentage change and trend since tracking started, and the time series of observed prices. A tracking created moments ago may report awaiting_first_price until its first check completes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracking_id | Yes | Tracking id from track_hotel_price or list_tracked_hotels. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it enumerates the computed fields and discloses the transient awaiting_first_price state for newly created trackings. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent accurate expectations.
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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the action and result fields, the second covers an important edge case. No filler or redundancy.
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 single-required-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is returned, the scope of the time series, and the early-life behavior. It is sufficiently complete.
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 is 100% because the parameter already documents that tracking_id comes from track_hotel_price or list_tracked_hotels. The tool description adds general context but no additional parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the recorded prices for one tracking', and enumerates the exact result contents (current, first, lowest, highest, percentage change, trend, time series). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that search, list, or create trackings.
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 establishes clear context: it operates on one existing tracking identified by tracking_id, and even notes the post-creation edge case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient among the sibling tools.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: search_hotels finds hotels, track_hotel_price starts tracking, list_tracked_hotels shows active trackings, get_price_history details one tracking, and list_hotel_deals surfaces discounts. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same imperative verb + noun pattern with snake_case: get_price_history, list_hotel_deals, list_tracked_hotels, search_hotels, track_hotel_price. The naming is predictable and consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for a hotel price tracker: hotel discovery, tracking creation, tracking listing, price history retrieval, and deal browsing. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core workflow is well covered: search, track, list, and inspect history, plus a deals view. The main gap is the lack of an explicit way to stop/delete a tracking or update tracking parameters, though this may be intentionally unsupported for anonymous public trackings.