chainvectorSignalsHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only historical replay (non-destructive) and mentions the type of data returned (momentum, whale pressure, regime). However, it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or response format, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and supported by use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides a clear purpose and use cases, making the tool understandable. It lacks a description of the return format (e.g., structure of snapshot/regime samples), but the essential context is covered for a historical data retrieval 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% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about assets and signal types but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as the meaning of interval buckets or from/to range details, which are already covered in the schema.

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 replays past snapshot and regime samples for specified assets (BTC/ETH/SOL/XRP/DOGE) to observe how momentum, whale pressure, or regime evolved. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chainvectorSignalsSnapshot (current) and chainvectorMomentum (single metric) by focusing on historical replay.

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 clear use cases: backtesting a strategy template and explaining changes before a move. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., chainvectorSignalsSnapshot for current state) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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