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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses what the result contains (minimum, maximum, variation), which serves as lightweight output disclosure, but says nothing about data availability, symbol restrictions, or error behavior for unsupported values.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The parameter lines each add real information rather than restating the schema titles.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately names the returned metrics, and it documents all three inputs with allowed values. For a simple read-only market lookup the remaining gaps (required flag, unsupported-input behavior) are minor.

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 largely does: it names all three parameters and supplies value sets the schema lacks (dias as 1/7/30/90, moneda as usd/eur/pen) plus a symbol format example ('btc'). It stops short of stating which are required or the default behavior.

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 resource and scope: price evolution over recent days with min, max and variation. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'precio' by its historical window, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: asking for the last N days naturally means historical trend analysis rather than a spot quote. There is no explicit 'use this instead of precio when...' statement and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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