pmus_get_price_history

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context by explaining how short prices are calculated and by warning that the gateway currently returns empty history for many markets, which helps set expectations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about empty history is presented separately without cluttering the primary definition.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context for calling the tool: what it returns, how prices are defined, and a key practical caveat. It does not fully explain parameter selection trade-offs, but those are reasonably documented in the schema.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful detail about param semantics beyond the schema, though it does clarify the nature of the returned price series.

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 long and short prices, with specific definitions of how they are derived from best ask and best bid. This distinguishes it from current-quote siblings like pmus_get_bbo and order book tools.

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 word 'Historical' implies this is for past prices rather than current market state, and the sibling list includes plausible alternatives. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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