polymarket_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read operation but does not mention side effects, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response size limits. The return format is described, but deeper behavioral traits are omitted.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. Core functionality and return format are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details on parameter constraints, pagination, ordering, and the exact meaning of 'history'. Users must rely on external knowledge or trial and error.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It hints at the roles of 'interval' and 'startTs/endTs' (interval vs timestamp window), but does not define valid interval values, the meaning of 'fidelity', or that 'market' is required. Parameters are left largely undefined, requiring inference.

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 tool returns 'Historical price series for one outcome token', which is specific and distinct from sibling polymarket tools like 'polymarket_price' (likely current price). The mention of 'by named interval or an explicit ts window' adds operational context. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as polymarket_price, polymarket_midpoint, or polymarket_trades. The description does not explain the trade-offs between using 'named interval' vs 'explicit ts window', nor does it address prerequisites or context like market selection.

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