GPU price history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the Free API tier is limited to 30 days, longer ranges are clamped, and the answer explicitly says so. It also discloses that the point list is thinned and specifies the output components, which goes beyond 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output contents; the second sentence adds a crucial limitation. Every word earns its place.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the output components. Combined with full schema descriptions for all three parameters and the read-only/idempotent annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, including the important Free-tier clamping edge case.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the range parameter by explaining the Free-tier clamp behavior and 30-day visibility, and it clarifies that maxPoints produces a thinned list. These details go beyond the schema's plain property descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 resource (one GPU model), unit (USD per GPU-hour), and scope (historical range). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'one model' and 'history,' and it enumerates the output fields (first/last value, change, low/high, thinned points), so an agent can tell it apart from price, comparison, and market summary tools without opening schemas.

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 a single-model historical price use case but never names alternatives like get_gpu_price or compare_gpu_prices, nor states when this tool should be preferred. It gives no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, which is a gap given the sibling tools.

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