madeonsol_peak_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by listing the exact data points returned (e.g., decline from peak %, MC at bond), but does not contradict annotations. The behavioral information is adequately provided.

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 a single sentence (25 words) that front-loads the main purpose ('Peak MC history for a token') and concisely lists all included data points. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the data points an agent can expect, and annotations cover behavioral concerns. A minor omission is the return format (e.g., object vs. array), but it does not hinder understanding.

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 'mint' is fully described in the input schema as 'Token mint address (base58)', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool's purpose: returning peak market cap history for a token, including all-time high MC, decline from peak, MC at bond and at various intervals after bond, time-to-bond, and timestamps. This is distinct from sibling tools like madeonsol_token_get or madeonsol_token_candles, which provide different data.

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 usage for retrieving historical peak MC and related metrics. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the specificity makes it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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