get_fiat_convert_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The tool is implied to be read-only ('get'), but no behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness are disclosed. The description only states the purpose and the limit parameter.

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, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and describes the parameter efficiently.

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 low schema coverage (0%) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the history contains (e.g., fields returned, date range, pagination). It only mentions the limit parameter, leaving significant information gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter 'limit' is described as 'Number of records (default: 50)', which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has a default value and type). This is adequate for a simple parameter, but no further parameter details are provided (e.g., valid range).

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?

Description states 'Get fiat conversion history' which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving historical conversion data for fiat currencies. It distinguishes from siblings like get_convert_history (likely crypto) and get_fiat_balance, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar history tools.

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 (e.g., get_convert_history, get_fiat_convert_status). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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