get_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two important facts: the cost of 10 credits per call and auto-refund on failure. The 'get' nature and 'price trend' wording imply read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly say that or describe rate limits, though the output schema presumably documents return data.

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 primary purpose, then the cost/refund note. No word is wasted, and each sentence adds essential information.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage context, cost, and refund. The output schema exists to document return values, so the description need not do so. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the 'up to 24 months' limit, which clarifies the 'months' parameter. However, it does not explain the other parameters (make, model, year), though those are self-explanatory. The description gives some value but is not comprehensive.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get monthly average price trend' for up to 24 months. It also names the intended purpose, 'to identify depreciation curves,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on valuation, liquidity, and regional pricing.

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 provides a clear context (monthly price history for depreciation analysis) and notes the cost of 10 credits, implying careful use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, lacking exclusions or alternatives.

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