get_market_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It states 'Get recent transaction history' without clarifying what 'recent' means (time range), whether the operation is read-only, or any permissions needed. The lack of detail on safety and side effects is a gap.

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, front-loading the purpose and return type. It is efficient with no wasted words. Could potentially add more detail without being verbose.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (volume and price time series by market) but omits specifics like time window for 'recent', number of records, or pagination. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for item_code. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no additional context on how to find item codes). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'recent transaction history across all Taiwan wholesale markets for a product', and the return format 'per-market volume and price time series data'. This differentiates the tool from siblings like get_daily_trades which likely aggregate by time period.

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 implies usage for cross-market transaction history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_daily_trades or search_products. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.

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