get_price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('chronologically ordered list of objects containing timestamp and price data') and parameter mutual exclusivity, which is useful. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. An output schema exists, so return details are partially covered, but the description still leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 description is structured with a clear purpose statement, a return format explanation, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core function. Some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the mutual exclusivity in both interval and start_ts/end_ts descriptions), but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (5 parameters, 1 required) and the richness of the input schema (which lacks descriptions), the description provides essential parameter semantics, mutual exclusivity, and return format. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be further explained. It is nearly complete, though it could mention authentication or rate limits for full contextual completeness.

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. It provides clear semantics for all five parameters: token_id as the fundamental ID, interval with valid options and mutual exclusivity with start_ts/end_ts, fidelity as resolution in minutes with examples, and start_ts/end_ts as Unix timestamps to use together. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (historical price time-series data for a specified token). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price (current price) or get_last_trade_price (last trade) by emphasizing historical time-series, which enables charting and trend analysis.

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 implies usage for charting and trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_price or get_trade_history. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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