get-coin-chart-by-id

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. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly addresses what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the parameter context.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple read operation. It covers the purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks details on authentication, response format, or error handling. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement in behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'time ranges' which aligns with the 'period' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'chart data for a specific cryptocurrency', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-coin-by-id' by specifying chart data retrieval rather than general coin information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-portfolio-chart' which might serve a similar charting function for portfolios.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-coin-by-id' for general data or 'get-portfolio-chart' for portfolio-specific charts. It mentions 'specifying different time ranges' but doesn't explain when to choose this over other charting or data retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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