get_bitcoin_dominance_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the data is used for charts, implying it's likely a read-only operation for historical data, but doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 repetitive and poorly structured, with the phrase 'On Coinranking, we use this endpoint on our' repeated three times for different charts. This adds unnecessary length without providing new information. It could be condensed into a single sentence listing the chart uses, making it more front-loaded and efficient. The current version wastes space on 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?

Given the complexity (historical data retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., format of dominance vs. market cap data), potential limitations, or how the parameters affect results. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid and timePeriod) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default behaviors or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 the tool retrieves 'bitcoin dominance history along with bitcoin market capitalization data', which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('bitcoin dominance history'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_coin_market_cap_history or get_global_market_cap_history, which might retrieve similar market cap data. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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 includes three examples of where Coinranking uses this endpoint (bitcoin dominance chart, global trading volume chart, global market cap chart), which implies usage contexts. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coin_market_cap_history or get_global_market_cap_history, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The examples are helpful but don't constitute clear usage guidelines.

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