market_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states that the call makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits arrays to 100 rows/256 KiB, reports truncation, and refuses oversized records. It also flags include_sets as unverified, giving an agent realistic expectations about upstream 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 front-loaded with its purpose and then gives tight, useful behavioral caveats. It loses a point for opaque or awkward phrasing such as 'the capture had 126 rows' and the run-on 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch...'

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?

It covers important operational constraints (no pagination, response limits, truncation reporting) and the include_sets uncertainty, so an agent can mostly predict behavior. However, with no output schema it never describes the expected response shape, and it leaves the player parameter format unexplained, so invocation still relies on unstated conventions.

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 needs to compensate, but it only vaguely explains the player parameter as 'one player' and gives include_sets a non-semantic caveat (forwarded only when supplied; effect not established). It does not state the accepted player identifier format or what include_sets values look like.

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 opening sentence, 'Read card market history for one player,' states a specific verb and resource with clear per-player scope, so an agent can tell it is a market-history lookup. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling market-history tools such as market_rental_history or market_query_by_card.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over the many market_* siblings or what kinds of lookups it is best suited for. The caveats about include_sets and pagination describe behavior, not selection criteria.

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