polymarket_price_history

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already present, the description adds valuable context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and specifying the exact return shape '{history:[{t, p}]}' with unix seconds and price 0-1. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 appropriately short, leading with the purpose and providing return shape and auth in three lines. The final line about kalshi_candlesticks is confusing and somewhat undermines the otherwise clear structure.

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 price tool with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, time selection, return format, and auth. It doesn't need to explain return values further since it explicitly provides the return shape, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already contains detailed descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), including the enum values for interval and the alternative relationship between interval and startTs/endTs. The description only reiterates the two query modes, adding little 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 'Historical price series for one outcome token — by named interval or an explicit ts window,' which clearly identifies the verb (historical price series), resource (one outcome token), and two query modes. This distinguishes it from sibling price tools like polymarket_price and polymarket_spread, which likely serve other purposes.

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 implies usage by stating both named interval and explicit ts window options, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as polymarket_price or the Kalshi candlestick tools. The closing line 'Also answers this: kalshi_candlesticks, kalshi_candlesticks_batch' is ambiguous and could be interpreted as a compatibility note rather than a clear usage directive.

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