get_crypto_synced_balance_history

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns monthly history and is scoped per symbol. It does not disclose return format or edge cases, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so this is adequate.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, scoping, and relationship to a sibling tool, while the schema handles parameter details. It omits return format, but for a read-only history getter with no output schema, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that the tool uses account_id and symbol as identifiers and implies monthly granularity, adding little beyond the schema.

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 monthly balance history for a synced crypto holding, identified by account_id and ticker symbol. It also explicitly distinguishes this from get_account_balance_history, making it easy to select the correct tool.

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 explicitly names the alternative (get_account_balance_history) and explains that synced crypto is scoped per symbol, so it is not available through that tool. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool, though it does not discuss other potential alternatives or exclusions.

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