Live Coin Risk History

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is hourly, includes multiple historical series, and some data (mark/oracle dislocation history) is included only 'when available.' No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

Three purposeful sentences: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The most important intent is front-loaded, and the return-component list is compact. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the major output components and caveating availability. The hours range and output format are already documented in the schema, so their absence from the description is acceptable. It could have briefly noted the default 7-day window, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a history-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents coin, hours, and useToonFormat. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the historical nature of the data. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 and resource: 'Get the historical risk lane for a coin.' It also provides example questions and enumerates the returned data types (OI, long/short history, cohort rotation, candles, mark/oracle dislocations, liquidations), making its purpose concrete. The word 'historical' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'live_coin_risk_snapshot', so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 'Best for questions like...' phrasing gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool, especially for historical risk analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative snapshot/current-state tools, but the historical framing and example questions strongly imply the appropriate use case.

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