get_crypto_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions cost per request ($0.003), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, potential error conditions, or rate limits. The 'Get' verb implies read access, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 followed by a cost note. Both elements earn their place: the purpose is front-loaded, and the pricing is critical for cost-aware agents. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has three parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return format or data granularity. It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about what response to expect. While the schema handles parameter definitions, the lack of return-value details makes the description only minimally complete for a historical data tool.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (id, days, currency) with descriptions and constraints. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline score of 3. It does not enhance understanding of how parameters interact with the historical data retrieval.

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 retrieves historical price data for a cryptocurrency, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical price data'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_crypto_price' which likely targets current prices. However, it lacks details on the time series format or granularity, making it slightly less explicit than ideal.

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 such as 'get_crypto_price' or 'get_crypto_markets'. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling set.

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