crypto_history

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. The description doesn't state return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. However, 'Get...history data' strongly implies a read operation, which provides reasonable transparency for a simple data-fetching tool.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words, which is appropriate for a straightforward data-fetching tool. It's front-loaded with the key purpose but could arguably add the interval/date flexibility it supports.

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 an output schema (which helps), 4 well-documented parameters, and a simple read-only purpose. The description covers the core purpose adequately, though it doesn't mention the flexible date range or interval options that the parameters support. For a simple fetch tool, this is minimally complete but not enriched.

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%, with each parameter already well-described in the schema (start/end date defaults, symbol examples, interval options). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No parameter-level enrichment is offered in the description.

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 'Get cryptocurrency historical price data' clearly states the verb (get), resource (cryptocurrency), and scope (historical price data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_history and fx_history by specifying cryptocurrency, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like stock_history, fx_history, or world_index_history. The tool name and 'cryptocurrency' qualifier imply the usage context, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance given the many sibling history/candle tools.

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