historical_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions supported resolutions but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or data adjustments. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not clearly articulated.

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 action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second provides key parameter context. It is concise without being terse to the point of being unhelpful.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics for epics and num_points, and behavioral details. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the missing guidance on how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 meaning to the 'resolution' parameter by listing MINUTE, HOUR, DAY, WEEK, but leaves 'epic' and 'num_points' unexplained. The description provides partial parameter clarification but 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 the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Get historical prices for an EPIC.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like market_details or search_markets by focusing on historical price retrieval. It also mentions supported resolutions, adding concrete detail.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need historical prices. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidelines or references to alternative tools. The context is understandable but relies on the user inferring the tool's role.

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