get_global_market_cap_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 data for analysis, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or response format. The mention of a website link adds minimal practical context 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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, while the second provides a real-world example (website link), though this example may not be highly useful for an AI agent. There is no redundant information, making it 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 tool's complexity (historical data retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, data format, or behavioral constraints like rate limits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool 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 both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'timePeriod') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'retrieve historical cryptocurrency market capitalization data' with the specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'historical cryptocurrency market capitalization data'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' by specifying 'global' scope, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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. The description mentions analyzing trends and tracking market performance, but does not specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_coin_market_cap_history' or 'get_global_stats', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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