get_historical_token_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get historical price' and adds no information about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format. For a read operation, this minimal information is insufficient for the agent to anticipate behavior.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what the result contains (e.g., currency, price format). It does not, leaving the return value ambiguous. However, the tool is simple and the input parameters are well-documented, so it is minimally viable.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (chain, tokenAddress, timestamp) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 states the tool gets the historical price of a token at a specific timestamp, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_current_token_price and get_token_price_comparison because of the 'historical' and 'timestamp' qualifiers, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as needing current prices or comparing prices, nor does it exclude any use cases. There is no explicit context for selection.

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