crypto_historical_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions sorting and a 30-day window, but omits that the time_frame parameter can override that window, and doesn't mention pagination behavior, response format options, or source filtering. This is a significant gap for a read tool with no schema-level behavioral hints.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. There is no filler; every word earns its place. The structure is highly concise and easily scannable.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the time_frame override, pagination defaults, format selection, or source filtering, and gives no indication of what an Article contains. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema and sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly the 'last 30 days' context which relates to time_frame. However, it may unintentionally mislead by implying a fixed window rather than a configurable one, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Returns a list of Articles'), the resource (Articles), and scopes it to the last 30 days with newest-first sorting. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_articles or latest_news, but the time-frame and sorting details provide some distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations. The agent is left without direction for tool selection.

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