get_coin_supply_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical supply data but doesn't mention key behaviors such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. The FAQ link is external and not integrated into the description, so it adds minimal value for an AI agent.

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 and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides an external FAQ link, which is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. Overall, it avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, though the link could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., time-series data format), potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand the full scope and behavior of the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (interval, limit, uuid), including defaults, allowed values, and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage tips. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing extra explanation in the description.

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: 'check out a coin's historical amount of supplies.' It specifies the verb ('check out') and resource ('coin's historical amount of supplies'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_price_history' or 'get_coin_market_cap_history,' which might also retrieve historical data but for different metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an FAQ link for general information about supplies but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_coin' or 'get_coins,' which might offer related data. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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