crypto_get_historic_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Get') without describing the return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. The phrase 'historic trades' implies immutable past data, but that is not a substitute for explicit behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the date format is a practical addition. It earns perfect marks for conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It tells the agent what the tool does at a high level but does not explain what the response will contain, how pagination works, or how the 'limit' parameter behaves. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret the tool without additional assumptions.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'crypto pair' corresponds to from_symbol and to_symbol, and specifies the date format for the 'date' parameter. However, it does not address the 'limit' parameter, nor does it clarify symbol ordering or formatting (e.g., base/quote convention). This partial compensation yields a middle score.

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's function: 'Get historic trades for a crypto pair on a date (YYYY-MM-DD).' It identifies the resource (historic trades), the required context (crypto pair and date), and includes the date format. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_get_trades, the word 'historic' and the date parameter imply a distinction.

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. It does not mention related tools for current trades (e.g., crypto_get_trades) or historical data for other asset classes. The intended use case is implied by the description but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.

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