live_coin_risk_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It clearly states the function is read-only (no destructive effects), lists exact return components (hourly OI, long/short history, etc.), and implies real-time or historical data aggregation. It does not claim any rate limits or authentication requirements, but this is acceptable given the context.

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 brief (two sentences) but packs essential information: purpose, usage examples, and return data composition. No extraneous content; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering what data is returned. It does not specify return format beyond listing components, but this feels sufficient for a data-retrieval tool. Missing details like pagination or data ordering are minor given the concise nature.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., 'hourly OI, long/short history, cohort rotation'), which gives context for how parameters like 'hours' affect the data scope. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'coin' or 'useToonFormat' beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already has clear descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical risk lane for a coin'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming multiple data components (hourly OI, long/short history, cohort rotation, etc.) that are unique to this tool. The example questions further clarify its distinct purpose.

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 example questions to guide when to use this tool ('how did this setup become fragile?' or 'did the Sharps rotate before the move?'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools. Siblings like live_coin_risk_snapshot or market_historical_oi could be confused, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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