market_get_token_history

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond that by specifying the data source (CoinGecko), the need for a coin ID, and the exact return data types (OHLC, market cap/volume). This provides useful operational context without contradicting 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, no fluff. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return data types and data source. It could specify the output structure (e.g., array of objects) but is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (token ID/address format, period enum). The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only reinforcing 'by its coin ID' and 'specified number of days.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does heavy lifting.

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 the tool fetches historical price data for a token from CoinGecko, using a coin ID, and specifies the return types (OHLC candlesticks, market cap/volume). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like market_get_token_price (current price) and market_get_klines (exchange klines) by naming the CoinGecko source and including market cap/volume history.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need historical price data for a token from CoinGecko, with details on input (coin ID/address) and output. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5 but is still a useful usage guide.

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