get_coin_rank_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 describes what data is available (ranking types) but fails to mention critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or data format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded; it starts with a general statement and then lists ranking types with embedded links, which adds some clutter. Sentences are informative but not optimally structured for quick scanning, and the inclusion of markdown links slightly reduces efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what data is available but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and historical data retrieval, more context is needed to ensure proper usage without relying on external documentation.

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%, so the input schema already documents parameters (uuid, interval, limit) with details like defaults and allowed values. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 states the tool retrieves historical ranking data for coins, specifying different ranking types (market cap, volume, price, fully diluted market cap). However, it lacks a clear, specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' or 'get_coin_price_history', which might overlap in scope. The purpose is understandable but vague in differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions available ranking types but doesn't clarify scenarios for choosing this over similar tools (e.g., 'get_coin_market_cap_history' for market cap data only). Usage is implied through context but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.

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