get_coin_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'lists prices and their timestamp' and is 'useful for making a chart,' which implies a read-only operation returning historical data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure, timestamps in ISO format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences: the first explains the tool's function, and the second provides a usage hint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. However, the first sentence ('Coinranking keeps track of prices on all listed assets.') is somewhat generic and could be more tightly integrated with the tool-specific information.

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 price data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of price-timestamp pairs), data granularity, or potential limitations (e.g., max time range). For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with all three parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid, timePeriod, uuid) well-documented in the input schema, including default values and allowed values for timePeriod. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the 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's purpose: 'lists prices and their timestamp for the requested time period' and mentions it's 'useful for making a chart.' It specifies the action (list), resource (prices with timestamps), and scope (requested time period). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price' or 'get_coin_ohlc_data' which might provide similar price-related data.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions the tool is 'useful for making a chart,' which implies a visualization context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_price' (for current price) or 'get_coin_ohlc_data' (for OHLC data). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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