get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the return structure (close/avg/min/max for daily), defaults, payload size comparison, the full public window, and even interpretive guidance about how today's number relates to yesterday's. This is comprehensive transparency for a read-only operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every clause carries weight: purpose, usage condition, default behavior, payload ratio, and window limit. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior thoroughly. However, it does not specify what happens when the 'asset' parameter is omitted, since the schema has no required fields. This leaves a potential ambiguity about whether a default asset exists, which is a minor gap in an otherwise complete description.

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 covers both parameters, including payload counts for granularity. The description adds meaning by explaining that daily returns close/avg/min/max and clarifies that hourly is only for intraday shape, which goes beyond the schema's static definitions. It enriches the granularity parameter but does not add much for the asset parameter.

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 provides sentiment over the last seven days, specifying both the resource and the time window. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the historical scope is distinct enough from likely alternatives like current sentiment. The purpose is specific and actionable, though it could benefit from a direct contrast with a sibling.

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 explicitly says to use this only to distinguish normal readings from outliers, and provides clear conditions for hourly granularity ('only when the shape inside a day matters'). It also mentions the seven-day window limit and the payload trade-off, giving the agent precise when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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