assets_slug_marketcap-history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any constraints, such as date range limits, data resolution, or authentication requirements. The simple statement does not reveal potential quirks or safe usage patterns.

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 a single, concise sentence that uses no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately scannable, maximizing information density.

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 should compensate with richer context. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or any default behaviors for start/end. This is inadequate for a tool with three parameters and a time-series data response.

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 (slug, start, end all described), so the description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema itself is clear.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('market cap history for an asset'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'assets_slug_history' or 'agentFriendly_asset_mcap_history_slug', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of several closely related sibling tools (e.g., for price history, technical indicators), the absence of usage context or exclusions is a significant gap.

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