get_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads rollup candles and explains how 'auto' resolution behaves (hourly up to 14 days, daily beyond). It could mention output ordering, empty results, or league handling, but what it does share is meaningful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the performance note and auto-resolution behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the purpose, performance characteristics, and resolution semantics. It lacks guidance on edge cases such as unknown item keys, empty history, or league requirements, and does not distinguish itself from sibling price-related tools. Still, it is largely self-contained for a read-only history query.

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 provides names and defaults but no descriptions. The description explains the resolution='auto' behavior, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. But days, league, item_key, and the difference between hourly/daily resolutions are left to the agent to infer.

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 object: 'OHLC price history for one item, for charting or trend analysis.' It clearly names the resource (price history) and scope (one item), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_price or get_movers.

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 clear intended use case ('for charting or trend analysis') and even notes that long windows remain fast due to rollup candles. However, it never names alternatives or says when to prefer this over get_price, get_movers, or other sibling tools.

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