Market history

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: archive start dates, 30-day keyless limit, and paid plan depth. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with data categories and archive dates. The developer plan link is brief and relevant to depth limitations, with no filler.

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 absence of an output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the essential context: data types, archive availability, access limits, and read-only nature. It does not detail output format or error conditions but remains sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage and no parameter docs. The description compensates by explaining 'one pair' vs 'one coin' and implying the 'days' parameter, but it lacks explicit parameter formats, requiredness/exclusivity, and valid value guidance.

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 a daily history tool with two specific modes: pair-level metrics (funding rate, open interest, price, liquidation totals) and coin-level whale flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings like market_snapshot and whale_flow by emphasizing 'daily history' and archive depth.

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?

Provides clear usage context: keyless calls cover 30 days, paid developer plan reaches full archive, and data is descriptive only. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when to prefer this over siblings, but the scope is well implied.

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