Cohort Bias History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: hourly cadence, 30-day max range, and the response contents (notional and account counts per tier). This helps set expectations without repeating the 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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output, use case, scope, and limit. Front-loaded with the main action and output.

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?

For a read-only historical tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, output shape, supported scope, and time limit. The only notable gap is not explicitly disambiguating from the similarly named live_cohort_bias_history sibling.

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 carries the parameter documentation; the description reinforces that omitting coin yields a global aggregate and constrains ranges to 30 days, but adds little new semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get historical hourly bias snapshots for all trader cohorts' and specifies the returned data (net long/short notional and account counts per tier). It is clear about scope and constraints, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like live_cohort_bias_history or pulse_cohort_history.

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?

It gives a direct use case: 'Use this to see how different groups (whales, smart money) have shifted their positioning over time,' and states coverage ('per-coin or global aggregate') and a hard limit ('Max range is 30 days'). It does not name alternative tools for real-time snapshots or explicitly say when not to use it.

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