get_global_trading_volume_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the endpoint is used on specific charts, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides minimal operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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 reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second and third sentences are redundant (both mention 'On Coinranking, we use this endpoint on our...') and don't add meaningful guidance. The chart links provide context but don't help an agent understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, the format of historical data points, or how to interpret results. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about response structure and behavioral constraints needed to use this 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the input schema. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The schema already thoroughly documents all three parameters with defaults and constraints.

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 retrieves historical cryptocurrency trading data for analyzing market trends and tracking activity over time. It specifies the resource (global trading volume history) and purpose (analysis/tracking), but doesn't distinguish it from similar siblings like 'get_global_market_cap_history' beyond mentioning both endpoints are used on different charts.

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 it's used on Coinranking's global trading volume and market cap charts, but this doesn't help an agent choose between this tool and similar ones like 'get_global_market_cap_history' or 'get_coin_price_history'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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